The Sunday Herald runs a long article by John Bynorth, largely based on an interview with me, claiming that Abdelbaset Megrahi has been treated shabbily by the Scottish criminal justice system. It focuses primarily upon the delay in bringing his current appeal against a highly questionable conviction to fruition.
The Sunday Mail prints an article claiming that Megrahi wishes to be released following the diagnosis of advanced stage prostate cancer, but wishes to remain in Scotland (and to be joined here by his wife and children) for palliative care.
The Sunday Times runs an opinion piece by its columnist, Joan McAlpine. It reads in part:
'Last year, after four years of deliberation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission suggested there may have been a miscarriage of justice. The new appeal will take place next year, missing the 20th anniversary of Lockerbie this December. By then, Megrahi will probably be dead as well.
'Robert Black QC, the emeritus professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, believes a miscarriage of justice has indeed occurred and is scathing about the legal establishment’s apparent reluctance to put this right. He has accused the Lord Advocate and the British government of resorting to “every delaying tactic in the book” to obstruct an appeal, exposing Scottish justice to ridicule around the world. This view is shared by Professor Hans Kochler, the UN observer at the Camp Zeist trial, and one of its biggest critics.
'Given the circumstances, there are many who believe it appropriate for the Libyan to be released early, so he can spend his last days with his wife and children. The law, quite correctly, allows the early release of prisoners who face imminent death. There are some, however, who the public would never tolerate releasing, even on humanitarian grounds, such as West and Huntley. But if Megrahi is guilty, then why should his terrible murders be seen as less serious than their terrible murders? It is easier to be compassionate if you think the man is innocent. Some individuals, including Tam Dalyell MP, describe him as a quiet, cultured man who is incapable of such a ghastly act. I do seem to remember the late Lord Longford saying something similar about the child killer Myra Hindley. Nobody paid much attention.
'For the moment, Megrahi is a convicted child killer — the youngest person on PanAm 103 was nine months old. Many, including the families of most American victims, are convinced of his guilt. The families have, after all, received millions of dollars of compensation from Gaddafi, his employer. This leaves a terrible taste. If Megrahi, an intelligence agent, placed the bomb, it was at the command of a president who is now our new best friend.
'It is for the court of appeal to determine the facts. Black argues it can proceed even if Megrahi dies. Beyond that, we need to nail allegations that Scottish justice was compromised. Was evidence withheld from the defence for political reasons? Why is the appeal process so slow the appellant is likely to die first? Lockerbie is more damaging to our legal system’s reputation than the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal. Like the McKie case, it should be scrutinised by a full public inquiry.
'As for Megrahi, he should be treated with compassion in his last days. But unless and until his conviction is overturned, that must be within the walls of Greenock prison.'
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Saturday, 25 October 2008
Letter from Dr Jim Swire
Megrahi: An unfolding human tragedy
Most people would not wish to exploit or extend the misery of others. It is so easy to hate, yet to harbour corrosive hate is also to harm oneself. Does anyone suppose they would feel any lasting benefit were Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi forced to die in prison, far from his family? Would such a fate advantage those still grieving after 20 years for the loss of loved ones at Lockerbie? I don't believe it would.
More than five years after his application, his next appeal against his 27-year sentence still does not have a starting date. All we know is that our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided his trial might have been unfair. The absence of certainty is in a sense our fault. We have been far too slow. Look at the dilemma tardiness has brought upon us. But the lack of certainty is irrelevant: guilty or innocent, we have an unfolding human tragedy. We do not have a code of punishment that condemns people to die in a foreign prison, so far from their family.
The world is watching whether we show magnanimity or vengeance. To those who might wish the maximum misery for this man I would quote John Donne: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee."
[From today's issue of The Herald. It can be read here.]
Most people would not wish to exploit or extend the misery of others. It is so easy to hate, yet to harbour corrosive hate is also to harm oneself. Does anyone suppose they would feel any lasting benefit were Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi forced to die in prison, far from his family? Would such a fate advantage those still grieving after 20 years for the loss of loved ones at Lockerbie? I don't believe it would.
More than five years after his application, his next appeal against his 27-year sentence still does not have a starting date. All we know is that our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided his trial might have been unfair. The absence of certainty is in a sense our fault. We have been far too slow. Look at the dilemma tardiness has brought upon us. But the lack of certainty is irrelevant: guilty or innocent, we have an unfolding human tragedy. We do not have a code of punishment that condemns people to die in a foreign prison, so far from their family.
The world is watching whether we show magnanimity or vengeance. To those who might wish the maximum misery for this man I would quote John Donne: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee."
[From today's issue of The Herald. It can be read here.]
Friday, 24 October 2008
Reaction from HMP Greenock
Gaddafi forked out £1500 to have satellite telly fitted at [Greenock] jail when Megrahi was moved there from Barlinnie three years ago. He also provided cash for the channel subscription fees.
The prisoners get the full range of sport and top movies, but no porn channels. (...)
The bomber was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer last month and was told a few days ago that the disease has spread to other parts of his body.
The Record's source said: "There has been an uproar since the cons heard Megrahi was dying.
"He's already well liked, and the fact he got good telly for everyone only helps his standing.
"The Libyan embassy paid for Sky to be piped into Megrahi's hall. The other two halls weren't happy, so the Libyans agreed to pay for them as well. (...)
A Scottish Prison Service spokeswoman said: "All the prisoners at Greenock have access to Sky TV, paid for by the Common Good Fund."
Megrahi is appealing against his conviction for murdering 270 people in the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 in 1988.
Lockerbie campaigner Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the atrocity and doubts Megrahi's guilt, has said he should be allowed to go home to die.
[From an article in today's Daily Record. It can be read here.]
The prisoners get the full range of sport and top movies, but no porn channels. (...)
The bomber was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer last month and was told a few days ago that the disease has spread to other parts of his body.
The Record's source said: "There has been an uproar since the cons heard Megrahi was dying.
"He's already well liked, and the fact he got good telly for everyone only helps his standing.
"The Libyan embassy paid for Sky to be piped into Megrahi's hall. The other two halls weren't happy, so the Libyans agreed to pay for them as well. (...)
A Scottish Prison Service spokeswoman said: "All the prisoners at Greenock have access to Sky TV, paid for by the Common Good Fund."
Megrahi is appealing against his conviction for murdering 270 people in the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 in 1988.
Lockerbie campaigner Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the atrocity and doubts Megrahi's guilt, has said he should be allowed to go home to die.
[From an article in today's Daily Record. It can be read here.]
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Release bid "hypothetical"
First Minister Alex Salmond has declined to answer "hypothetical" questions about the treatment of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. (...)
Mr Salmond said there was no application before the Scottish Government and it would be wrong to "prejudge" any such process. (...)
The possibility of a transfer back to Libya has also been raised.
Mr Salmond said the Scottish Government never commented on the medical condition of any prisoner.
"I note that Mr Megrahi's legal team have asked for privacy on that matter," he said.
"And, secondly, there's no application for prisoner transfer or anything else before the Scottish Government, therefore there's no consideration being given to it because there's no application."
He said he would not answer hypothetical questions.
"One thing you could never do under any circumstances is prejudge how you would treat any such application - if indeed one arrived," he said.
"As far as the medical condition of any prisoner in Scotland is concerned, we don't discuss it - that's a matter for them and their medical advisers."
[From a report on the BBC News website. The full text can be read here.]
Mr Salmond said there was no application before the Scottish Government and it would be wrong to "prejudge" any such process. (...)
The possibility of a transfer back to Libya has also been raised.
Mr Salmond said the Scottish Government never commented on the medical condition of any prisoner.
"I note that Mr Megrahi's legal team have asked for privacy on that matter," he said.
"And, secondly, there's no application for prisoner transfer or anything else before the Scottish Government, therefore there's no consideration being given to it because there's no application."
He said he would not answer hypothetical questions.
"One thing you could never do under any circumstances is prejudge how you would treat any such application - if indeed one arrived," he said.
"As far as the medical condition of any prisoner in Scotland is concerned, we don't discuss it - that's a matter for them and their medical advisers."
[From a report on the BBC News website. The full text can be read here.]
The Scotsman's leading article
A kind reader has sent me the text of The Scotsman's editorial. It is headed "If Lockerbie bomber is dying, he should go free". The final three paragraphs read:
'In the event that Megrahi dies before the appeal, it is legally possible for the case to be continued on behalf of the relatives of those who were murdered in the bombing. While it would be second best, that legal avenue should certainly be explored in the untimely event that Megrahi succumbs to his illness. The one thing that must not be allowed to happen is for the truth regarding this atrocity to die with the only person found guilty - on questionable grounds - of perpetrating it.
'If Megrahi was not involved, or even if only a minor part of the conspiracy, then who is guilty? One theory that remains is that Iran commissioned the attack, perhaps employing Palestinian guerrillas, in retaliation for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the US military. Whatever the truth, it must be exposed.
'This leaves the final new twist to this murky tale: should Megrahi be allowed to die outside his prison walls? There is a place for compassion in the administration of justice because that is what makes our culture different from that of the terrorist or suicide bomber. But we would have to be very sure that Megrahi is truly as ill as is reported.'
'In the event that Megrahi dies before the appeal, it is legally possible for the case to be continued on behalf of the relatives of those who were murdered in the bombing. While it would be second best, that legal avenue should certainly be explored in the untimely event that Megrahi succumbs to his illness. The one thing that must not be allowed to happen is for the truth regarding this atrocity to die with the only person found guilty - on questionable grounds - of perpetrating it.
'If Megrahi was not involved, or even if only a minor part of the conspiracy, then who is guilty? One theory that remains is that Iran commissioned the attack, perhaps employing Palestinian guerrillas, in retaliation for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the US military. Whatever the truth, it must be exposed.
'This leaves the final new twist to this murky tale: should Megrahi be allowed to die outside his prison walls? There is a place for compassion in the administration of justice because that is what makes our culture different from that of the terrorist or suicide bomber. But we would have to be very sure that Megrahi is truly as ill as is reported.'
Detailed coverage in The Scotsman
In the past, I have been critical of the weakness of The Scotsman's coverage of issues relating to the Lockerbie disaster and the ongoing appeal by Abdelbaset Megrahi. Today, however, I wish to deliver a bouquet rather than a brickbat.
The paper runs three articles (plus an editorial, which I have not read because it is in the subscription section of the paper's website). Two of the articles are by Michael Howie and are headlined "Al-Megrahi: the dilemma" and "Lockerbie bombing: Appeal could go ahead even if he's dead". The third is an op-ed piece by Tam Dalyell under the headline "Issue is not only Megrahi, but integrity of Scottish legal system … this case does not cease simply because of death".
The paper runs three articles (plus an editorial, which I have not read because it is in the subscription section of the paper's website). Two of the articles are by Michael Howie and are headlined "Al-Megrahi: the dilemma" and "Lockerbie bombing: Appeal could go ahead even if he's dead". The third is an op-ed piece by Tam Dalyell under the headline "Issue is not only Megrahi, but integrity of Scottish legal system … this case does not cease simply because of death".
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Some serious coverage
The best coverage that I have so far found of the Megrahi health issue is to be found on the website of The Herald. It includes a video comment from veteran Lockerbie campaigner and ex-MP, Tam Dalyell. The article can be accessed here.
The website of The Daily Telegraph also has an informative article by the paper's Scottish correspondent.
The website of The Daily Telegraph also has an informative article by the paper's Scottish correspondent.
Transfer of rights of appeal
Given that the mills of the Scottish criminal justice system grind exceeding slow, it seems worthwhile to consider what the legal position would be if Abdelbaset Megrahi were to succumb to his illness before the current appeal has been decided.
In such circumstances, the provisions in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 303A, relating to the transfer of the rights of appeal of a deceased person, would come into play. This section reads:
'(1) Where a person convicted of an offence has died, any person may, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to the High Court for an order authorising him to institute or continue any appeal which could have been or has been instituted by the deceased.
'(2) An application for an order under this section may be lodged with the Clerk of Justiciary within three months of the deceased’s death or at such later time as the Court may, on cause shown, allow. (...)
'(4) Where an application is made for an order under this section and the applicant—
(a) is an executor of the deceased; or
(b) otherwise appears to the Court to have a legitimate interest,
the Court shall make an order authorising the applicant to institute or continue any appeal which could have been instituted or continued by the deceased; and, subject to the provisions of this section, any such order may include such ancillary or supplementary provision as the Court thinks fit.
'(5) The person in whose favour an order under this section is made shall from the date of the order be afforded the same rights to carry on the appeal as the deceased enjoyed at the time of his death and, in particular, where any time limit had begun to run against the deceased the person in whose favour an order has been made shall have the benefit of only that portion of the time limit which remained unexpired at the time of the death.
'(6) In this section “appeal” includes any sort of application, whether at common law or under statute, for the review of any conviction, penalty or other order made in respect of the deceased in any criminal proceedings whatsoever.'
Were Abdelbaset Megrahi to die before the conclusion of the appeal, it seems probable that resort would be made to this procedure and that the appeal would continue. But in simple humanity, surely all concerned in the current proceedings should strive to the utmost to secure that the appeal proceeds with the greatest possible expedition, in order to render resort to the transfer procedure superfluous.
In such circumstances, the provisions in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 303A, relating to the transfer of the rights of appeal of a deceased person, would come into play. This section reads:
'(1) Where a person convicted of an offence has died, any person may, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to the High Court for an order authorising him to institute or continue any appeal which could have been or has been instituted by the deceased.
'(2) An application for an order under this section may be lodged with the Clerk of Justiciary within three months of the deceased’s death or at such later time as the Court may, on cause shown, allow. (...)
'(4) Where an application is made for an order under this section and the applicant—
(a) is an executor of the deceased; or
(b) otherwise appears to the Court to have a legitimate interest,
the Court shall make an order authorising the applicant to institute or continue any appeal which could have been instituted or continued by the deceased; and, subject to the provisions of this section, any such order may include such ancillary or supplementary provision as the Court thinks fit.
'(5) The person in whose favour an order under this section is made shall from the date of the order be afforded the same rights to carry on the appeal as the deceased enjoyed at the time of his death and, in particular, where any time limit had begun to run against the deceased the person in whose favour an order has been made shall have the benefit of only that portion of the time limit which remained unexpired at the time of the death.
'(6) In this section “appeal” includes any sort of application, whether at common law or under statute, for the review of any conviction, penalty or other order made in respect of the deceased in any criminal proceedings whatsoever.'
Were Abdelbaset Megrahi to die before the conclusion of the appeal, it seems probable that resort would be made to this procedure and that the appeal would continue. But in simple humanity, surely all concerned in the current proceedings should strive to the utmost to secure that the appeal proceeds with the greatest possible expedition, in order to render resort to the transfer procedure superfluous.
Lockerbie bomber diagnosed with prostate cancer... and could now be moved from his cell to 'a more comfortable environment'
This is the headline over a lengthy story, in which the source of the newspaper's information remains undisclosed, in today's issue of the Daily Mail. It speculates about the stage which the disease has reached and the possibility of Abdelbaset Megrahi's being moved from Greenock Prison to a more suitable treatment location.
The full article can be read here.
If the story is true, it provides a further reason for the High Court to stamp firmly on the obstructionist tactics of the Crown in the ongoing appeal and to insist on a full hearing at the earliest possible date.
The BBC News website has a short article on the subject, with confirmation of the diagnosis from Mr Megrahi's solicitor, Tony Kelly.
The full article can be read here.
If the story is true, it provides a further reason for the High Court to stamp firmly on the obstructionist tactics of the Crown in the ongoing appeal and to insist on a full hearing at the earliest possible date.
The BBC News website has a short article on the subject, with confirmation of the diagnosis from Mr Megrahi's solicitor, Tony Kelly.
Saturday, 18 October 2008
High Court decision on Lockerbie case is to be welcomed
This is the headline over a letter in today's issue of The Herald from Dr Jim Swire. It can be read here.
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Monkey business?
Your vigilant reporter noticed at yesterday’s session of the High Court in Edinburgh that Dr Jim Swire was wearing only one hearing-aid and not his normal two. Perhaps the hearing in one ear had dramatically improved, I thought. Regrettably not. What happened was that while the intrepid Dr Swire was walking recently along a jungle trail in Sarawak, one of his hearing-aids mysteriously went missing. Was it purloined by a proboscis monkey, appropriated by an orang-utan or simply lassoed by a liana? Yet another Lockerbie-related mystery.
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Lockerbie bombing families step up calls for full enquiry
This is the headline over a story posted this afternoon on the website of The Scotsman. It reads in part:
'Speaking after today's hearing, Dr [Jim] Swire said: "[It is proposed to draft] a letter [calling for a full enquiry] which we will be asking various notable people to sign on behalf of the relatives. It defines why we are still impatient with what has been revealed to us so far.
'"We have always called for a comprehensive inquiry and one of the great areas of irritation is the question of why the disaster was not prevented and why our loved ones were allowed to be murdered."
'He added: "In addition to that there are questions surrounding the conduct of the case, the conduct of the investigation, the role of the Scottish authorities in the investigation and the role of both the British and US authorities in the drawing up of evidence."
'Dr Swire said in the years since the tragedy the families had met many people who had shown a "heartening interest" in the case.
'"We hope many of them will be prepared to sign a letter which basically will call for a thorough inquiry into all the questions that are still outstanding surrounding this terrible case.
'"We anticipate that letter would then be published, on or around the 20th anniversary."'
The full text of the article can be read here.
'Speaking after today's hearing, Dr [Jim] Swire said: "[It is proposed to draft] a letter [calling for a full enquiry] which we will be asking various notable people to sign on behalf of the relatives. It defines why we are still impatient with what has been revealed to us so far.
'"We have always called for a comprehensive inquiry and one of the great areas of irritation is the question of why the disaster was not prevented and why our loved ones were allowed to be murdered."
'He added: "In addition to that there are questions surrounding the conduct of the case, the conduct of the investigation, the role of the Scottish authorities in the investigation and the role of both the British and US authorities in the drawing up of evidence."
'Dr Swire said in the years since the tragedy the families had met many people who had shown a "heartening interest" in the case.
'"We hope many of them will be prepared to sign a letter which basically will call for a thorough inquiry into all the questions that are still outstanding surrounding this terrible case.
'"We anticipate that letter would then be published, on or around the 20th anniversary."'
The full text of the article can be read here.
Did the SCCRC give 5 or 6 reasons?
The High Court in today's Opinion refers to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's having given five reasons for deciding that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice. The SCCRC itself said that there were six reasons (para 2.8 of the SCCRC press release) though it itemised only four. What is the explanation for the discrepancy? I believe it to be the following.
The SCCRC counted (a) the failure of the Crown before the Zeist trial to hand over to the defence the mysterious document(s) in respect of which public interest immunity has now been claimed by the UK Foreign Secretary and (b) the evidence contained within that document as two separate reasons. It looks as if the High Court is lumping these two aspects together and counting them as amounting to only one single reason.
The SCCRC counted (a) the failure of the Crown before the Zeist trial to hand over to the defence the mysterious document(s) in respect of which public interest immunity has now been claimed by the UK Foreign Secretary and (b) the evidence contained within that document as two separate reasons. It looks as if the High Court is lumping these two aspects together and counting them as amounting to only one single reason.
Comprehensive victory for appellant
The High Court has totally rejected the Crown's contention that, as a matter of law, the appellant was entitled to argue only those grounds of appeal that formed the basis of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's decision to refer Abdelbaset Megrahi's case back to the court. It was always accepted by the appellant's legal team that the court had a discretion to reject any individual proposed ground of appeal (eg on the basis that it appeared on the face of it to be unarguable). But this was not good enough for the Crown, who insisted that it was a matter of law that the only grounds that the appellant was entitled to advance and entitled to have heard were those accepted by the SCCRC. It was in order to achieve such a ruling (which would have been contrary to decisions of the court in earlier cases) that a bench of five judges had to be convened. The Crown's argument has been unanimously (and, with respect, correctly) rejected by all five judges.
The Herald reports Tony Kelly, Mr Megrahi's solicitor, as saying:
"It is a complete victory for the appellant's position before the court and a complete rejection of the Crown's argument.
"The Crown employed lots of resources to try to restrict the court and they have been stopped in their tracks.
"It is an important victory for Mr Al Megrahi."
The following is an official summary of the court's Opinion. The full 83-paragraph Opinion can be read here.
SUMMARY
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred to this court the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi. The reference document runs to 790 pages. In it detailed consideration is given to a wide range of representations made on behalf of the applicant (the present appellant), as well as to the Commission's own investigations. Some of these representations found favour with the Commission; others did not. In making the reference the Commission identified five reasons which led it to believe that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. These reasons are set out in Chapters 21 to 25 inclusive of the reference document.
The appellant has, within the time limit specified by the Act of Adjournal, lodged grounds of appeal. These run to 317 pages. They include (sometimes reformulated) matters considered by the Commission but not included in its reasons for making the reference; they also include matters not raised with or discussed by the Commission.
The Crown contends that the appellant can not, as of right, require the court to entertain the full grounds of appeal lodged by him. While it is accepted that the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, entertain any of the grounds tabled, it is contended that the appellant is not entitled to have entertained grounds going beyond the reasons stated by the Commission in their reference. The debate which we heard was concerned with discussion of that contention.
The court has heard wide-ranging submissions from the Crown and from the appellant's counsel. The issue is one of statutory construction - in particular, the meaning and effect of section 194B(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended by the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997. The arguments advanced by the parties and the court's discussion of them are fully set out in the Opinion of the Court which is now available. The court's conclusion is that, for the reasons given, it rejects the statutory construction urged by the Advocate depute and holds that the appellant is entitled to have his stated grounds of appeal decided by the court on their respective merits. The mechanisms which the court will adopt for the purpose of making such an adjudication will require to be considered in due course. Whether it is desirable, having regard to among other things the use of judicial resources, that a reference appellant should have unrestricted scope in what he lays before the court for adjudication is a matter for Parliament; but this court must apply the statute as presently framed.
The court will put the case out for a procedural hearing at which it will consider parties' proposals for the management of this complex appeal.
The Herald reports Tony Kelly, Mr Megrahi's solicitor, as saying:
"It is a complete victory for the appellant's position before the court and a complete rejection of the Crown's argument.
"The Crown employed lots of resources to try to restrict the court and they have been stopped in their tracks.
"It is an important victory for Mr Al Megrahi."
The following is an official summary of the court's Opinion. The full 83-paragraph Opinion can be read here.
SUMMARY
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred to this court the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi. The reference document runs to 790 pages. In it detailed consideration is given to a wide range of representations made on behalf of the applicant (the present appellant), as well as to the Commission's own investigations. Some of these representations found favour with the Commission; others did not. In making the reference the Commission identified five reasons which led it to believe that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. These reasons are set out in Chapters 21 to 25 inclusive of the reference document.
The appellant has, within the time limit specified by the Act of Adjournal, lodged grounds of appeal. These run to 317 pages. They include (sometimes reformulated) matters considered by the Commission but not included in its reasons for making the reference; they also include matters not raised with or discussed by the Commission.
The Crown contends that the appellant can not, as of right, require the court to entertain the full grounds of appeal lodged by him. While it is accepted that the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, entertain any of the grounds tabled, it is contended that the appellant is not entitled to have entertained grounds going beyond the reasons stated by the Commission in their reference. The debate which we heard was concerned with discussion of that contention.
The court has heard wide-ranging submissions from the Crown and from the appellant's counsel. The issue is one of statutory construction - in particular, the meaning and effect of section 194B(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended by the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997. The arguments advanced by the parties and the court's discussion of them are fully set out in the Opinion of the Court which is now available. The court's conclusion is that, for the reasons given, it rejects the statutory construction urged by the Advocate depute and holds that the appellant is entitled to have his stated grounds of appeal decided by the court on their respective merits. The mechanisms which the court will adopt for the purpose of making such an adjudication will require to be considered in due course. Whether it is desirable, having regard to among other things the use of judicial resources, that a reference appellant should have unrestricted scope in what he lays before the court for adjudication is a matter for Parliament; but this court must apply the statute as presently framed.
The court will put the case out for a procedural hearing at which it will consider parties' proposals for the management of this complex appeal.
The "scope of the appeal" decision
It has been announced that the High Court's decision on the scope of the appeal will be issued at 12 noon today. The question whether the appeal should be confined to the six issues on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have constituted a miscarriage of justice was argued before five judges over four days from 17 to 20 June 2008.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)