This is the headline over a post on Michael White's politics blog on The Guardian's website. It reads in part:
'Why is [Megrahi] in the news again as well as being in Greenock prison on the lower Clyde? He has always denied his guilt, lost an appeal in March 2002, but has been given leave by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to appeal again. (...)
'If the families, not all of whom regard the conviction as doubtful, are prepared to let him go, why should we think otherwise?
'My only further thought from the period is that Colonel Gadafy's Libya in the 80s was a friendless whipping boy for US anger, impotence and frustration about the Arab world. It was the decade when Ronald Reagan had it bombed from UK bases for no convincing reason. (Margaret Thatcher agreed only because she felt she owed him one for help retaking the Falklands.)
'Syria, far guiltier of anti-American actions, as I recall, was treated more leniently for reasons of state, though no longer. (...)
'It is all far from Greenock prison, where al-Megrahi is apparently dying. Over to you, Mr MacAskill [the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government].'
The full article can be read here.
[Note by RB: It is not strictly accurate to say that Abdelbaset Megrahi's fate rests with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Seeking release on compassionate grounds is one avenue open to him, and the decision on that does rest with the Scottish Government. But it is also open to Mr Megrahi to apply to the High Court for interim liberation (bail, in other words) pending his appeal. The decision on that issue would be a matter for the judges of the High Court and not for politicians or ministers.]
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Monday, 27 October 2008
Abu Nidal 'was a US spy'
This is the gravamen of a long article by Robert Fisk in The Independent on 25 October. It was in reaction to this article that Tam Dalyell and I made a call for an inquiry into the possible relevance of this revelation to the Lockerbie disaster, which is reported in a number of newspapers today, including The Scotsman. I hasten to add that Mr Dalyell and I did not suggest that Abu Nidal had been the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: General Command. This is the reporter's own embroidery. Mr Dalyell and I are well aware that the "distinction" of leading the PFLP:GC rests with Ahmed Jibril.
Sunday, 26 October 2008
What should happen now
[My opinions about what should happen to Abdelbaset Megrahi now that he has been diagnosed with late stage prostate cancer are canvassed in a number of Sunday newspapers. What follows are my real views, expressed in my own words.]
Since 31 January 2001 -- the day the guilty verdict against Abdelbaset Megrahi was announced by the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist – I have made no secret of my belief in his innocence. His conviction, on the evidence led at the trial, was nothing short of astonishing. It constitutes, in my view, the worst miscarriage of justice perpetrated by a Scottish criminal court since the conviction of Oscar Slater in 1909 for the murder of Marion Gilchrist.
In this context it is highly relevant to note that one – by far the most important – of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that there might have been a miscarriage of justice in Mr Megrahi’s case was its view that no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that the Lockerbie court did on a matter absolutely central to its reasons for convicting. The SCCRC said:
“[T]he Commission formed the view that there is no reasonable basis in the trial court's judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary's House [which were in the suitcase that also contained the bomb] took place on 7 December 1988. Although it was proved that the applicant was in Malta on several occasions in December 1988, in terms of the evidence 7 December was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to purchase the items. The finding as to the date of purchase was therefore important to the trial court's conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser. Likewise, the trial court's conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser was important to the verdict against him. Because of these factors the Commission has reached the view that the requirements of the legal test may be satisfied in the applicant's case.”
But even if there were not overwhelming grounds for doubting the justifiability of the court’s verdict, there are other reasons for pressing for his release from prison, given his recent diagnosis of late-stage, untreatable prostate cancer.
The first of these reasons is compassion and humanity. There is a practice – though not an invariable one -- within the Scottish Prison Service of releasing a prisoner who has only three months to live. We none of us know whether that stage has been reached in the progression of Mr Megrahi’s illness. But is it really necessary for those in whose power the decision lies, to wait until they are certain that that point has arrived? This particular prisoner finds himself incarcerated in a foreign country whose culture is alien to him. His sense of isolation at this time and the psychological strain on him must be greater than what would be suffered by a Scottish prisoner in a Scottish jail. Would it not be both appropriate as well as merciful for this to be recognized by the Scottish authorities?
Secondly, the delay in bringing Mr Megrahi’s current appeal to the hearing stage has been appalling. Had a measure of urgency been shown, it is entirely conceivable that the appeal could have been over before now and the appellant back with his wife and children in his own country, a free man. The SCCRC had his case under consideration for more than three years before referring it back to the High Court. The submission made to them was, admittedly, a long and detailed one. But the issue of the trial court’s unreasonable findings, mentioned above, is a very simple and straightforward one and required virtually no investigation other that a perusal of the relevant portions of the transcript of evidence. If the SCCRC decided early in its deliberations that the case was going to have to be referred back on this ground – and it is difficult to believe that it did not – then delaying taking that step for three years is hard to justify.
Then there is the delay that has occurred after the SCCRC referred the case to the High Court in June 2007.
More than sixteen months have passed since then. More than thirteen months have passed since the first procedural hearing in the new appeal was held. More than ten months have passed since the appellant’s full written grounds of appeal were lodged with the court. Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?
The answer is simple: because the Crown, in the person of the Lord Advocate, and the United Kingdom Government, in the person of the Advocate General for Scotland, have been resorting to every delaying tactic in the book (and where a particular obstructionist wheeze is not in the book, have been asking the court to rewrite the book to insert it). These tactics include, to name but a few, raising difficulties about allowing the appellant access to productions used at the original trial; seeking to overturn previous appeal court decisions on the scope of the appeal in SCCRC references; and claiming public interest immunity on “national security” grounds in respect of documents which have been in the hands of the Crown for more than twelve years and which have been seen by the SCCRC. The judges on a number of occasions have expressed disquiet at the Crown’s dilatoriness; but have so far done little, if anything, meaningful to curb it.
Abdelbaset Megrahi has been shabbily dealt with by the Scottish criminal justice system. The Scottish Government has an opportunity now to treat him with compassion and dignity. I, for one, hope that it has the moral courage to seize this opportunity.
Since 31 January 2001 -- the day the guilty verdict against Abdelbaset Megrahi was announced by the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist – I have made no secret of my belief in his innocence. His conviction, on the evidence led at the trial, was nothing short of astonishing. It constitutes, in my view, the worst miscarriage of justice perpetrated by a Scottish criminal court since the conviction of Oscar Slater in 1909 for the murder of Marion Gilchrist.
In this context it is highly relevant to note that one – by far the most important – of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that there might have been a miscarriage of justice in Mr Megrahi’s case was its view that no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that the Lockerbie court did on a matter absolutely central to its reasons for convicting. The SCCRC said:
“[T]he Commission formed the view that there is no reasonable basis in the trial court's judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary's House [which were in the suitcase that also contained the bomb] took place on 7 December 1988. Although it was proved that the applicant was in Malta on several occasions in December 1988, in terms of the evidence 7 December was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to purchase the items. The finding as to the date of purchase was therefore important to the trial court's conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser. Likewise, the trial court's conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser was important to the verdict against him. Because of these factors the Commission has reached the view that the requirements of the legal test may be satisfied in the applicant's case.”
But even if there were not overwhelming grounds for doubting the justifiability of the court’s verdict, there are other reasons for pressing for his release from prison, given his recent diagnosis of late-stage, untreatable prostate cancer.
The first of these reasons is compassion and humanity. There is a practice – though not an invariable one -- within the Scottish Prison Service of releasing a prisoner who has only three months to live. We none of us know whether that stage has been reached in the progression of Mr Megrahi’s illness. But is it really necessary for those in whose power the decision lies, to wait until they are certain that that point has arrived? This particular prisoner finds himself incarcerated in a foreign country whose culture is alien to him. His sense of isolation at this time and the psychological strain on him must be greater than what would be suffered by a Scottish prisoner in a Scottish jail. Would it not be both appropriate as well as merciful for this to be recognized by the Scottish authorities?
Secondly, the delay in bringing Mr Megrahi’s current appeal to the hearing stage has been appalling. Had a measure of urgency been shown, it is entirely conceivable that the appeal could have been over before now and the appellant back with his wife and children in his own country, a free man. The SCCRC had his case under consideration for more than three years before referring it back to the High Court. The submission made to them was, admittedly, a long and detailed one. But the issue of the trial court’s unreasonable findings, mentioned above, is a very simple and straightforward one and required virtually no investigation other that a perusal of the relevant portions of the transcript of evidence. If the SCCRC decided early in its deliberations that the case was going to have to be referred back on this ground – and it is difficult to believe that it did not – then delaying taking that step for three years is hard to justify.
Then there is the delay that has occurred after the SCCRC referred the case to the High Court in June 2007.
More than sixteen months have passed since then. More than thirteen months have passed since the first procedural hearing in the new appeal was held. More than ten months have passed since the appellant’s full written grounds of appeal were lodged with the court. Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?
The answer is simple: because the Crown, in the person of the Lord Advocate, and the United Kingdom Government, in the person of the Advocate General for Scotland, have been resorting to every delaying tactic in the book (and where a particular obstructionist wheeze is not in the book, have been asking the court to rewrite the book to insert it). These tactics include, to name but a few, raising difficulties about allowing the appellant access to productions used at the original trial; seeking to overturn previous appeal court decisions on the scope of the appeal in SCCRC references; and claiming public interest immunity on “national security” grounds in respect of documents which have been in the hands of the Crown for more than twelve years and which have been seen by the SCCRC. The judges on a number of occasions have expressed disquiet at the Crown’s dilatoriness; but have so far done little, if anything, meaningful to curb it.
Abdelbaset Megrahi has been shabbily dealt with by the Scottish criminal justice system. The Scottish Government has an opportunity now to treat him with compassion and dignity. I, for one, hope that it has the moral courage to seize this opportunity.
Sunday newspapers on Megrahi's plight
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.'
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.'
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)