The Criminal Appeal Court (consisting of Lord Justice General Hamilton, Lords Kingarth and Wheatley) today reserved judgement in Abdelbaset Megrahi's application for interim liberation pending his appeal. No indication was given as to how long this period of avizandum (consideration) would be. There is a further sitting of the court already fixed for 27 November, but it is devoutly to be hoped that their Lordships will be in a position to announce their decision before then.
As anticipated in a previous post on this blog, the appellant's counsel, Maggie Scott QC, founded on (1) the substantial nature of the appellant's grounds of appeal, including the fact that some of them have the support of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission; (2) the delay that has already occurred in the case and the further delay that is likely before the appeal is heard; and (3) the state of the appellant's health.
The Crown, represented by Ronnie Clancy QC, opposed the granting of bail, principally on the ground of the gravity of the crime of which the appellant stands convicted (the murder of 270 persons), but also on the basis that at least some of the grounds of appeal were unlikely to succeed; that the delays which had occurred were not (at least primarily) the fault of the Crown (this submission causing a measure of astonishment amongst many of those present in the courtroom); and that the appellant's illness (which the Crown accepted as genuine) could be satisfactorily treated in Greenock Prison.
The court investigated what conditions should be attached to interim liberation, if granted, which at least indicates that the possibility is being taken seriously.
The report of today's hearing on the BBC News website can be read here.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
Do those convicted of murder ever get interim liberation?
The answer to this question is yes. What matters is whether the grounds of appeal (1) if successful, would lead to the conviction being quashed and (2) are arguable, ie not on the face of it doomed to failure. These tests are clearly satisfied in cases, such as Abdelbaset Megrahi’s, where an independent expert body (the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) has referred the case to the Criminal Appeal Court on the ground that the conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
Examples of recent murder cases in which interim liberation was granted pending the appeal are the Campbell and Steele case (where the appellants had been convicted of the murder of six people) and the Nat Fraser case.
Will the High Court grant interim liberation tomorrow? Provided the court is satisfied about security issues (both Mr Megrahi’s personal security and the measures in place to ensure that he will not abscond) the criteria seem to be satisfied (and this is wholly without reference to the grave state of his health). But no-one has ever contended that the Lockerbie case is other than exceptional.
[The BBC News website's advance report of the interim liberation hearing can be read here.]
Examples of recent murder cases in which interim liberation was granted pending the appeal are the Campbell and Steele case (where the appellants had been convicted of the murder of six people) and the Nat Fraser case.
Will the High Court grant interim liberation tomorrow? Provided the court is satisfied about security issues (both Mr Megrahi’s personal security and the measures in place to ensure that he will not abscond) the criteria seem to be satisfied (and this is wholly without reference to the grave state of his health). But no-one has ever contended that the Lockerbie case is other than exceptional.
[The BBC News website's advance report of the interim liberation hearing can be read here.]
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Edinburgh Student newspaper on Lockerbie
The current issue of Student, the newspaper of University of Edinburgh students (and the oldest student newspaper in the United Kingdom) runs an interview with me on Lockerbie, as well as an op-ed piece.
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Security concerns if Megrahi bailed
The Sunday Express has a story by Ben Borland about concerns over Abdelbaset Megrahi's safety and security if he is released as a result of Thursday's interim liberation application. The article reads in part:
'A massive security operation will be launched to protect the Lockerbie bomber from revenge attacks if he is released from prison this week.
'Experts believe Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is at risk of assault or even being murdered by campaigners angered by any decision to free him. (...)
'It is understood that extensive contingency plans are being drawn up involving Strathclyde Police, the Scottish Prison Service and other authorities. (...)
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the attack, said he hoped to be at the High Court on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile to witness the decision.
'He said: “At a recent meeting of the UK families group the overwhelming opinion was that this man should not be tortured by being kept in prison for his last days, even though many are not sure whether he is guilty or not.
'“Some people on the Internet make comments saying keep him in prison or withdraw his drugs and I find that shocking. I thought the concept of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ went out long ago.”
'He added: “When his family was living in Scotland they had to be moved to a house with enhanced security and CCTV cameras because some people were throwing stones.
'“That was just his family. If he is released from prison I think he would need protection, which in turn will convey to those still grieving that he is being punished, that he is still under guard.
'“I do have concerns for his safety after what happened to his family. We have a duty to protect him.”
'Professor Robert Black, the former University of Edinburgh legal expert who helped set up Megrahi’s trial, said: “The court will have to be satisfied about where he is going and the safety arrangements, both from the point of view of him not absconding and his personal safety because there are nutcases in the world that would like to kill him.”'
The full text can be read here.
'A massive security operation will be launched to protect the Lockerbie bomber from revenge attacks if he is released from prison this week.
'Experts believe Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is at risk of assault or even being murdered by campaigners angered by any decision to free him. (...)
'It is understood that extensive contingency plans are being drawn up involving Strathclyde Police, the Scottish Prison Service and other authorities. (...)
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the attack, said he hoped to be at the High Court on Edinburgh’s Royal Mile to witness the decision.
'He said: “At a recent meeting of the UK families group the overwhelming opinion was that this man should not be tortured by being kept in prison for his last days, even though many are not sure whether he is guilty or not.
'“Some people on the Internet make comments saying keep him in prison or withdraw his drugs and I find that shocking. I thought the concept of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ went out long ago.”
'He added: “When his family was living in Scotland they had to be moved to a house with enhanced security and CCTV cameras because some people were throwing stones.
'“That was just his family. If he is released from prison I think he would need protection, which in turn will convey to those still grieving that he is being punished, that he is still under guard.
'“I do have concerns for his safety after what happened to his family. We have a duty to protect him.”
'Professor Robert Black, the former University of Edinburgh legal expert who helped set up Megrahi’s trial, said: “The court will have to be satisfied about where he is going and the safety arrangements, both from the point of view of him not absconding and his personal safety because there are nutcases in the world that would like to kill him.”'
The full text can be read here.
Scotland on Sunday
Scotland on Sunday has two articles and an editorial on Abdelbaset Megrahi's application for interim liberation. One of the articles, by Marcello Mega, deals mainly with Mr Megrahi's medical condition and prognosis. The other article, headlined "Judgment will resonate round the world" by David Leask, reads in part:
'Few would relish the decision. Three of Scotland's most senior judges must decide whether to free on bail the man convicted of the biggest single act of mass murder in Scottish history.
'Their job is to decide whether the grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's current appeal against conviction are so compelling that they outweigh the horrors of the Lockberie bombing.
'The law in the case is straightforward. An appellant seeking release on bail has to show that the grounds of his appeal would, if sustained, lead to his conviction being quashed.
'Professor Robert Black, a leading expert in the Lockerbie case, believes the Libyan has more than enough grounds.
'He has stressed the appeal stems from a report from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which warned his conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice. But there are other, perhaps more compelling factors facing Lord Hamilton, Scotland's most senior judge, and two colleagues at Edinburgh's High Court who must decide later this week whether releasing Megrahi poses any danger to the public – or any risk of flight.
'Here Megrahi's supporters can be confident. The 56-year-old faces a painful death from cancer within 12 months. Is he fit to flee the jurisdiction of Scottish justice? No. Is he likely to kill if freed?
'As his conviction was for a politically motivated act of terror, a repeat attack hardly seems plausible, particularly in his physical state. (...)
'The Crown will have to decide whether to oppose bail, which it has in the past, arguing it should only be granted to convicted prisoners in 'exceptional' circumstances. A denial would leave Megrahi's lawyers with just once option: to put their application before Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. It is not a decision he will relish either.'
The editorial is headlined "Megrahi must stay in prison" and contains the following:
'There are good reasons why consideration is being given to the release from prison of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. On Thursday, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will ask the High Court to grant him bail pending next year's appeal against his conviction. Megrahi's defence believes he has a strong case, given serious doubts about key aspects of the evidence that convicted him. (...)
'But it would be wrong for ... the High Court ... to free the Libyan. However ill he is, Megrahi remains convicted of the worst crime ever committed in Scotland. A Scottish court – albeit sitting in the Netherlands – decided he ended 259 lives on flight Pan Am 103, and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie. This was brutal mass murder, and unless Megrahi is found innocent by the same judicial system, many Scots and the relatives of the American victims will continue to consider him guilty. It would be particularly insensitive to free him in the weeks before the 20th anniversary of the atrocity.
'Megrahi must stay in prison, where ways must be found to provide the best possible medical care. We hope his appeal comes quickly, and that he lives to see the outcome. Only that way will justice be served.'
'Few would relish the decision. Three of Scotland's most senior judges must decide whether to free on bail the man convicted of the biggest single act of mass murder in Scottish history.
'Their job is to decide whether the grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's current appeal against conviction are so compelling that they outweigh the horrors of the Lockberie bombing.
'The law in the case is straightforward. An appellant seeking release on bail has to show that the grounds of his appeal would, if sustained, lead to his conviction being quashed.
'Professor Robert Black, a leading expert in the Lockerbie case, believes the Libyan has more than enough grounds.
'He has stressed the appeal stems from a report from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which warned his conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice. But there are other, perhaps more compelling factors facing Lord Hamilton, Scotland's most senior judge, and two colleagues at Edinburgh's High Court who must decide later this week whether releasing Megrahi poses any danger to the public – or any risk of flight.
'Here Megrahi's supporters can be confident. The 56-year-old faces a painful death from cancer within 12 months. Is he fit to flee the jurisdiction of Scottish justice? No. Is he likely to kill if freed?
'As his conviction was for a politically motivated act of terror, a repeat attack hardly seems plausible, particularly in his physical state. (...)
'The Crown will have to decide whether to oppose bail, which it has in the past, arguing it should only be granted to convicted prisoners in 'exceptional' circumstances. A denial would leave Megrahi's lawyers with just once option: to put their application before Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. It is not a decision he will relish either.'
The editorial is headlined "Megrahi must stay in prison" and contains the following:
'There are good reasons why consideration is being given to the release from prison of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. On Thursday, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will ask the High Court to grant him bail pending next year's appeal against his conviction. Megrahi's defence believes he has a strong case, given serious doubts about key aspects of the evidence that convicted him. (...)
'But it would be wrong for ... the High Court ... to free the Libyan. However ill he is, Megrahi remains convicted of the worst crime ever committed in Scotland. A Scottish court – albeit sitting in the Netherlands – decided he ended 259 lives on flight Pan Am 103, and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie. This was brutal mass murder, and unless Megrahi is found innocent by the same judicial system, many Scots and the relatives of the American victims will continue to consider him guilty. It would be particularly insensitive to free him in the weeks before the 20th anniversary of the atrocity.
'Megrahi must stay in prison, where ways must be found to provide the best possible medical care. We hope his appeal comes quickly, and that he lives to see the outcome. Only that way will justice be served.'
Judges call for Lord Advocate to be stripped of powers
In the Greshornish House Accord of 16 September 2008, Professor Hans Köchler and I said this:
"It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998."
It appears that the judges of Scotland's supreme court have come to share this view. In today's Sunday Herald it is reported that in their submission to a commission set up to consider how the devolution settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom could be improved, the judges recommend that the Lord Advocate should cease to be the head of the public prosecution system and should act only as the Scottish Government's chief legal adviser. The Sunday Herald's article reads in part:
'In their report, the judges say the Lord Advocate's dual roles have generated scores of [human rights] challenges, gumming up the justice system. The opportunity "to challenge... virtually any act of a prosecutor has led to a plethora of disputed issues, with consequential delays to the holding of trials and to the hearing and completion of appeals against conviction." (...)
'The judiciary offer three possible solutions to the problem, but do not come down in favour of any particular one.
'They write: "Her responsibilities as the public prosecutor could be transferred to an independent Director of Public Prosecutions' in Scotland, who would be responsible for the prosecution system, but who would not be a member of the Scottish Executive (sic).
"Such a change would rob the Lord Advocate of most of her functions, but would leave the Scottish Executive with a Lord Advocate who was a general legal adviser to the Executive."
'They also suggest Westminster could amend the Scotland Act to explicitly exempt the Lord Advocate's actions as a prosecutor from compliance with ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights].
'A third possibility would be changing the law on criminal appeals, although they warn "such a radical nature would be likely to generate considerable controversy".'
The full article can be read here.
[I am grateful to Tony Kelly for drawing my attention to http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/engage/submissions-received.php where the judges' full submission can be accessed ("Judiciary in the Court of Session" just over half way down the list headed "Miscellaneous Submissions").
A letter from the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, clarifying the judges' position is published in Scotland on Sunday's 9 November edition. It can be read here.]
"It is inappropriate that the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of all criminal prosecutions. Whilst the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General continue as public prosecutors the principle of separation of powers seems compromised. The potential for a conflict of interest always exists. Resolution of these circumstances would entail an amendment of the provisions contained within the Scotland Act 1998."
It appears that the judges of Scotland's supreme court have come to share this view. In today's Sunday Herald it is reported that in their submission to a commission set up to consider how the devolution settlement between Scotland and the United Kingdom could be improved, the judges recommend that the Lord Advocate should cease to be the head of the public prosecution system and should act only as the Scottish Government's chief legal adviser. The Sunday Herald's article reads in part:
'In their report, the judges say the Lord Advocate's dual roles have generated scores of [human rights] challenges, gumming up the justice system. The opportunity "to challenge... virtually any act of a prosecutor has led to a plethora of disputed issues, with consequential delays to the holding of trials and to the hearing and completion of appeals against conviction." (...)
'The judiciary offer three possible solutions to the problem, but do not come down in favour of any particular one.
'They write: "Her responsibilities as the public prosecutor could be transferred to an independent Director of Public Prosecutions' in Scotland, who would be responsible for the prosecution system, but who would not be a member of the Scottish Executive (sic).
"Such a change would rob the Lord Advocate of most of her functions, but would leave the Scottish Executive with a Lord Advocate who was a general legal adviser to the Executive."
'They also suggest Westminster could amend the Scotland Act to explicitly exempt the Lord Advocate's actions as a prosecutor from compliance with ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights].
'A third possibility would be changing the law on criminal appeals, although they warn "such a radical nature would be likely to generate considerable controversy".'
The full article can be read here.
[I am grateful to Tony Kelly for drawing my attention to http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/engage/submissions-received.php where the judges' full submission can be accessed ("Judiciary in the Court of Session" just over half way down the list headed "Miscellaneous Submissions").
A letter from the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, clarifying the judges' position is published in Scotland on Sunday's 9 November edition. It can be read here.]
Saturday, 1 November 2008
Briefing on the U.S-Libya Comprehensive Claims Settlement Agreement
The press briefing by C David Welch, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, given on the occasion of the final payment by Libya into the compensation fund for US and Libyan victims of actions by the other party (including the Lockerbie disaster) can be read here.
Friday, 31 October 2008
Tam Dalyell: The Megrahi I know
The website of The Times runs an opinion piece by Tam Dalyell, former MP and Father of the House of Commons, which will again presumably appear in Saturday's print edition. Here is part of it:
'My deep conviction, as a “professor of Lockerbie studies” over a 20-year period is that neither al-Megrahi nor Libya had any role in the destruction of Pan Am 103.
'I believe they were made a scapegoat in 1990-91 by an American government that had decided to go to war with Iraq and did not want complications with Syria and Iran, which had harboured the real perpetrators of the terrible deed. Libya and its “operatives”, Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah (al-Megrahi's co-accused) and al-Megrahi, only came into the frame at a very late date. In my informed opinion, al-Megrahi has been the victim of one of the most spectacular (and expensive) miscarriages of justice in history. (...)
'Visiting him in prison, I was struck by his self-possession - a self-possession that had struck many people at his trial, possibly because it never occurred to him that he would be found guilty. It explains my passionate involvement over 20 years, as well as that of Robert Black, professor emeritus of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh. It was on our say-so that Libya ever surrendered its citizens to Scottish justice. Whatever happens to al-Megrahi, faced with advanced terminal cancer, the case will continue because on trial is the international reputation of Scottish justice and particularly of the Crown Office...
'Almost the last thing that al-Megrahi said to me was: “Yes, of course I want to go back to Tripoli. I have my wife and my five children are growing up, but I want to go back an innocent man.”
'Some of us are determined to find the truth and justice that we believe will find him innocent.'
On 6 November 2008, The Times printed the following "clarification":
'In Tam Dalyell's article in last Saturday's Times “A civilised, caring man - not a mass murderer”, Mr Dalyell claimed that the prosecution in the Lockerbie case had lied to Lord Coulsfield, the High Court judge, when it told the trial court at Camp Zeist that it had full confidence in the evidence of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci. Mr Dalyell's claim was based on reported comments made by a previous Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, that Mr Gauci was an unreliable witness who was “not the full shilling”. The present Lord Advocate has asked us to point out that Lord Fraser made it clear in 2005 that he did not have any reservations about any aspect of the prosecution, and had no aspersions to cast on Tony Gauci's evidence and, therefore, that there is no substance to the serious allegation in the article that the Crown had lied to the court about its confidence in the evidence of Tony Gauci.'
It should be noted that there is, and could be, no denial that Lord Fraser of Carmyllie used the words attributed to him by Tam Dalyell.
'My deep conviction, as a “professor of Lockerbie studies” over a 20-year period is that neither al-Megrahi nor Libya had any role in the destruction of Pan Am 103.
'I believe they were made a scapegoat in 1990-91 by an American government that had decided to go to war with Iraq and did not want complications with Syria and Iran, which had harboured the real perpetrators of the terrible deed. Libya and its “operatives”, Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah (al-Megrahi's co-accused) and al-Megrahi, only came into the frame at a very late date. In my informed opinion, al-Megrahi has been the victim of one of the most spectacular (and expensive) miscarriages of justice in history. (...)
'Visiting him in prison, I was struck by his self-possession - a self-possession that had struck many people at his trial, possibly because it never occurred to him that he would be found guilty. It explains my passionate involvement over 20 years, as well as that of Robert Black, professor emeritus of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh. It was on our say-so that Libya ever surrendered its citizens to Scottish justice. Whatever happens to al-Megrahi, faced with advanced terminal cancer, the case will continue because on trial is the international reputation of Scottish justice and particularly of the Crown Office...
'Almost the last thing that al-Megrahi said to me was: “Yes, of course I want to go back to Tripoli. I have my wife and my five children are growing up, but I want to go back an innocent man.”
'Some of us are determined to find the truth and justice that we believe will find him innocent.'
On 6 November 2008, The Times printed the following "clarification":
'In Tam Dalyell's article in last Saturday's Times “A civilised, caring man - not a mass murderer”, Mr Dalyell claimed that the prosecution in the Lockerbie case had lied to Lord Coulsfield, the High Court judge, when it told the trial court at Camp Zeist that it had full confidence in the evidence of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci. Mr Dalyell's claim was based on reported comments made by a previous Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, that Mr Gauci was an unreliable witness who was “not the full shilling”. The present Lord Advocate has asked us to point out that Lord Fraser made it clear in 2005 that he did not have any reservations about any aspect of the prosecution, and had no aspersions to cast on Tony Gauci's evidence and, therefore, that there is no substance to the serious allegation in the article that the Crown had lied to the court about its confidence in the evidence of Tony Gauci.'
It should be noted that there is, and could be, no denial that Lord Fraser of Carmyllie used the words attributed to him by Tam Dalyell.
Lockerbie bomber wants to stay in Scotland if freed
This is the headline over an article by Charlene Sweeney on the website of The Times and which will presumably appear in the print edition of the newspaper on Saturday, 1 November. It reads in part:
'Al-Megrahi's desire to stay in Scotland raises the prospect that taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill for his treatment, which is likely to include radiotherapy and chemotherapy.
'Tony Kelly, al-Megrahi's lawyer, denied that he could become a drain on public finances. “I don't think there would be any bar to him accessing the health service, but he would probably take care of it himself,” he said. “There wouldn't be an incursion on the public purse.”
'Al-Megrahi could be released immediately if he is granted bail at a hearing in the High Court. His defence team are seeking interim liberation after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to court in June last year.
'Other factors they may ask judges to take into consideration are his deteriorating health and the delay in the appeal process since the commission ruled 17 months ago his conviction could have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Al-Megrahi lost a previous appeal in 2002.
'The Crown Office would not comment on the hearing ahead of next Thursday, but it is thought that it will vigorously contest the attempt. (...)
'Professor Black said yesterday that he could see no legal argument for refusing bail to al-Megrahi.
'“If the court follows standard procedure they simply look to see if this person has put forward grounds of appeal that could lead to the quashing of a conviction. His grounds are not nonsense, they were decided by the commission. According to the standard norms that apply to convicted prisoners pending appeal he satisfies the criteria, in my view.”
'Dan Cohen, who lost his daughter Theodora in the tragedy, said: “I want to see al-Megrahi die in jail.”'
The full article can be read here.
'Al-Megrahi's desire to stay in Scotland raises the prospect that taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill for his treatment, which is likely to include radiotherapy and chemotherapy.
'Tony Kelly, al-Megrahi's lawyer, denied that he could become a drain on public finances. “I don't think there would be any bar to him accessing the health service, but he would probably take care of it himself,” he said. “There wouldn't be an incursion on the public purse.”
'Al-Megrahi could be released immediately if he is granted bail at a hearing in the High Court. His defence team are seeking interim liberation after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to court in June last year.
'Other factors they may ask judges to take into consideration are his deteriorating health and the delay in the appeal process since the commission ruled 17 months ago his conviction could have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Al-Megrahi lost a previous appeal in 2002.
'The Crown Office would not comment on the hearing ahead of next Thursday, but it is thought that it will vigorously contest the attempt. (...)
'Professor Black said yesterday that he could see no legal argument for refusing bail to al-Megrahi.
'“If the court follows standard procedure they simply look to see if this person has put forward grounds of appeal that could lead to the quashing of a conviction. His grounds are not nonsense, they were decided by the commission. According to the standard norms that apply to convicted prisoners pending appeal he satisfies the criteria, in my view.”
'Dan Cohen, who lost his daughter Theodora in the tragedy, said: “I want to see al-Megrahi die in jail.”'
The full article can be read here.
Libya completes payments for US terror victims
Libya has paid $1.5 billion into a fund to compensate the families of American victims of Libyan-linked terror attacks in the 1980s, clearing a final hurdle to full normalization of ties between Washington and Tripoli, the State Department said Friday.
In exchange, under a deal worked out earlier this year, the Bush administration will restore the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismiss pending compensation cases, it said.
Spokesman Sean McCormack called it "a laudable milestone" giving "a measure of justice to families of U.S. victims of terrorism and clearing the way for continued and expanding U.S.-Libyan partnership."
The money will go into a $1.8 billion fund that will pay $1.5 billion in claims for the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the 1986 bombing of a German disco. Another $300 million will go to Libyan victims of U.S. airstrikes ordered in retaliation for the disco bombing. (...)
The final deposit had been expected in early September but was inexplicably delayed, angering some in Congress who have thus far refused to lift holds on the nomination of a new U.S. ambassador to Libya and funds for the construction of a new U.S. embassy in Tripoli.
A first partial payment to the fund was received on Oct. 9, just days after the opening of a U.S. trade office in Libya's capital and a historic visit there last month by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit the country in more than 50 years. (...)
The developments come amid a huge increase in interest from U.S. firms, particularly in the energy sector, in doing business in Libya, where European companies have had much greater access in recent years. Libya's proven oil reserves are the ninth largest in the world, close to 39 billion barrels, and vast areas remain unexplored for new deposits.
[From Matthew Lee of Associated Press.
As this article on the Al Arabiya website makes clear, the compensation covers the families of all the victims of the Lockerbie disaster, not just the US ones.]
In exchange, under a deal worked out earlier this year, the Bush administration will restore the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismiss pending compensation cases, it said.
Spokesman Sean McCormack called it "a laudable milestone" giving "a measure of justice to families of U.S. victims of terrorism and clearing the way for continued and expanding U.S.-Libyan partnership."
The money will go into a $1.8 billion fund that will pay $1.5 billion in claims for the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the 1986 bombing of a German disco. Another $300 million will go to Libyan victims of U.S. airstrikes ordered in retaliation for the disco bombing. (...)
The final deposit had been expected in early September but was inexplicably delayed, angering some in Congress who have thus far refused to lift holds on the nomination of a new U.S. ambassador to Libya and funds for the construction of a new U.S. embassy in Tripoli.
A first partial payment to the fund was received on Oct. 9, just days after the opening of a U.S. trade office in Libya's capital and a historic visit there last month by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit the country in more than 50 years. (...)
The developments come amid a huge increase in interest from U.S. firms, particularly in the energy sector, in doing business in Libya, where European companies have had much greater access in recent years. Libya's proven oil reserves are the ninth largest in the world, close to 39 billion barrels, and vast areas remain unexplored for new deposits.
[From Matthew Lee of Associated Press.
As this article on the Al Arabiya website makes clear, the compensation covers the families of all the victims of the Lockerbie disaster, not just the US ones.]
Bomber release 'common humanity'
The BBC News website has an article reporting the views of Dr Jim Swire on the issue of the application to the High Court for interim liberation of Abdelbaset Megrahi pending his appeal. It reads in part:
'Dr Swire's daughter, Flora, was one of the 270 victims of the 1988 atrocity.
'He said the question of whether Megrahi should be released was one of "common humanity". (...)
'Dr Swire said he supported Megrahi being granted interim liberation because the Libyan reportedly does not have long to live.
'He claimed that keeping Megrahi away from his family in such a situation would amount to "torture".
'And Dr Swire said that "greater speed" in his appeal could have avoided the dilemma involving a "dying man who may or may not be guilty of the dreadful crime alleged against him".
'He said: "The man has reportedly got months to live.
'"My personal feelings are that to force him to remain segregated from his family and his five children for the short remaining time that he may have before him would amount to exquisite torture." (...)
'A decision on Megrahi's application for release will be made next week.'
'Dr Swire's daughter, Flora, was one of the 270 victims of the 1988 atrocity.
'He said the question of whether Megrahi should be released was one of "common humanity". (...)
'Dr Swire said he supported Megrahi being granted interim liberation because the Libyan reportedly does not have long to live.
'He claimed that keeping Megrahi away from his family in such a situation would amount to "torture".
'And Dr Swire said that "greater speed" in his appeal could have avoided the dilemma involving a "dying man who may or may not be guilty of the dreadful crime alleged against him".
'He said: "The man has reportedly got months to live.
'"My personal feelings are that to force him to remain segregated from his family and his five children for the short remaining time that he may have before him would amount to exquisite torture." (...)
'A decision on Megrahi's application for release will be made next week.'
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Interim liberation: law and practice
The relevant statutory provision relating to the granting of bail to convicted prisoners pending an appeal is section 112 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, the relevant portions of which read:
“(1)… the High Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of a convicted person, admit him to bail pending the determination of … his appeal.
“(2) The High Court shall not admit a convicted person to bail unless (a) the application for bail … states reasons why it should be granted … and (b) the prosecutor has had an opportunity to be heard on the application.”
The traditional approach of the High Court to the granting of bail pending an appeal is set out in guidelines issued by Lord Justice Clerk Wheatley in 1984 who stated that “it is not for [the judge considering bail] to pre-empt the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal [on the appeal itself]. Accordingly if there are grounds of appeal which ex facie would warrant the quashing of the conviction if sustained, in such circumstances interim liberation should be granted.”
There can be little doubt that this test is satisfied in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case. Not only have voluminous grounds of appeal been lodged which, if sustained, would lead to the quashing of the conviction; but also an independent review body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, has reported that the conviction may have constituted a miscarriage of justice.
The Crown has on occasion sought to argue that a convicted prisoner should be released on bail pending his appeal only in exceptional circumstances. This argument was decisively rejected by the Criminal Appeal Court in the case of Ogilvie, Petitioner 1998 SCCR 187.
Other factors that may be relevant to the court’s decision in Mr Megrahi’s case are (1) the delay to which he has been subjected while his application was in the hands of the SCCRC and since his case was returned to the High Court; and (2) the information that has recently become public about the grave state of his health.
The court normally, though not invariably, does not reserve judgement but announces its decision at the end of the hearing.
“(1)… the High Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of a convicted person, admit him to bail pending the determination of … his appeal.
“(2) The High Court shall not admit a convicted person to bail unless (a) the application for bail … states reasons why it should be granted … and (b) the prosecutor has had an opportunity to be heard on the application.”
The traditional approach of the High Court to the granting of bail pending an appeal is set out in guidelines issued by Lord Justice Clerk Wheatley in 1984 who stated that “it is not for [the judge considering bail] to pre-empt the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal [on the appeal itself]. Accordingly if there are grounds of appeal which ex facie would warrant the quashing of the conviction if sustained, in such circumstances interim liberation should be granted.”
There can be little doubt that this test is satisfied in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case. Not only have voluminous grounds of appeal been lodged which, if sustained, would lead to the quashing of the conviction; but also an independent review body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, has reported that the conviction may have constituted a miscarriage of justice.
The Crown has on occasion sought to argue that a convicted prisoner should be released on bail pending his appeal only in exceptional circumstances. This argument was decisively rejected by the Criminal Appeal Court in the case of Ogilvie, Petitioner 1998 SCCR 187.
Other factors that may be relevant to the court’s decision in Mr Megrahi’s case are (1) the delay to which he has been subjected while his application was in the hands of the SCCRC and since his case was returned to the High Court; and (2) the information that has recently become public about the grave state of his health.
The court normally, though not invariably, does not reserve judgement but announces its decision at the end of the hearing.
Megrahi applies for bail
The BBC News website reports that an application for interim liberation (bail) has been lodged with the High Court of Justiciary on behalf of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The article reads in part:
'The man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbasset al-Megrahi has applied to be released on bail, pending his appeal.
'Arguments are due to be heard in the High Court in Edinburgh next Thursday [6 November]. (...)
'BBC Scotland's Home Affairs correspondent Reeval Alderson said: "In the past, Megrahi has said he didn't want to come out of prison except as a free man. But things have changed lately.
'"He is suffering from an advanced form of prostate cancer which has spread to other parts of his body.
'"Nobody is saying whether his condition is terminal or talking about his life expectancy but it's quite clear Megrahi is very ill and now he has finally applied to the High Court to be allowed to be released while the legal moves go on and they're very, very protracted, they're very, very lengthy indeed."
'Mr Alderson said there had been no reaction from official sources, such as the Crown Office apart from to confirm that the hearing would take place. (...)
'Mr Alderson said he had just spoken to one set of American relatives who felt Megrahi should allowed out as there was no point in keeping him in prison.
'However, he added: "I don't think that is a view that is widely shared though, particularly with the American relatives."
'After the disclosure that Megrahi had prostate cancer, there were calls for his appeal against his 2001 conviction to be speeded up.'
The full report can be read here.
The STV News report on the issue can be watched here.
'The man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbasset al-Megrahi has applied to be released on bail, pending his appeal.
'Arguments are due to be heard in the High Court in Edinburgh next Thursday [6 November]. (...)
'BBC Scotland's Home Affairs correspondent Reeval Alderson said: "In the past, Megrahi has said he didn't want to come out of prison except as a free man. But things have changed lately.
'"He is suffering from an advanced form of prostate cancer which has spread to other parts of his body.
'"Nobody is saying whether his condition is terminal or talking about his life expectancy but it's quite clear Megrahi is very ill and now he has finally applied to the High Court to be allowed to be released while the legal moves go on and they're very, very protracted, they're very, very lengthy indeed."
'Mr Alderson said there had been no reaction from official sources, such as the Crown Office apart from to confirm that the hearing would take place. (...)
'Mr Alderson said he had just spoken to one set of American relatives who felt Megrahi should allowed out as there was no point in keeping him in prison.
'However, he added: "I don't think that is a view that is widely shared though, particularly with the American relatives."
'After the disclosure that Megrahi had prostate cancer, there were calls for his appeal against his 2001 conviction to be speeded up.'
The full report can be read here.
The STV News report on the issue can be watched here.
The South African connexion
[I am grateful to Patrick Haseldine for the following, written in response to various recent press contentions that a high-powered South African delegation was "hauled off" Pan Am flight 103.]
Both Magnus Linklater in the The Times ("Lockerbie questions demand an answer") and David Maddox in The Scotsman ("Was Lockerbie suspect working for the US?") are making the same mistake. They refer to senior South African figures being "hauled off" the plane, which is demonstrably untrue.
Following the first screening of Allan Francovich's film The Maltese Double Cross, which first revealed a South African connection to Lockerbie, a Reuters news agency report of 12 November 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:REUTERS12NOV94.jpg) clarified what actually happened. A 23-strong South African delegation - including Foreign Minister Pik Botha, Defence Minister Magnus Malan and Military Intelligence Chief C J Van Tonder - were travelling by South African Airways from Johannesburg. Their inbound flight inexplicably cut out a stopover at Frankfurt, which was SAA's European hub, and arrived early at Heathrow. The London embassy booked Botha and five of the party on Pan Am Flight 101 to New York for the signing of the Namibia Independence Agreement at UN headquarters on 22 December 1988. The remaining 17 members of the party returned from Heathrow on the SAA aircraft to Johannesburg.
UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, had been booked to travel by Sabena from Brussels (where he had addressed a Committee of the European Parliament) to New York for the same signing ceremony. However, Carlsson was persuaded by the South Africans to stopover at Heathrow and became the most high profile of the 270 Lockerbie victims.
Apartheid South Africa is thus intimately involved and might even have planned and executed the bombing without the involvement of any other country. This scenario neatly explains why Botha & Co did not need any forewarning by the CIA, and destroys the myth that they were "hauled off" the flight.
While it might be judicially and politically convenient now to shift the blame from the ailing Abdelbaset Megrahi to the dead terrorist Abu Nidal, we would be no nearer to the truth about the Lockerbie bombing. I continue to believe that, to get to the truth, a United Nations Inquiry into the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) is required. Let us hope that when the new US president takes office next January we will finally get this UN Inquiry.
Both Magnus Linklater in the The Times ("Lockerbie questions demand an answer") and David Maddox in The Scotsman ("Was Lockerbie suspect working for the US?") are making the same mistake. They refer to senior South African figures being "hauled off" the plane, which is demonstrably untrue.
Following the first screening of Allan Francovich's film The Maltese Double Cross, which first revealed a South African connection to Lockerbie, a Reuters news agency report of 12 November 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:REUTERS12NOV94.jpg) clarified what actually happened. A 23-strong South African delegation - including Foreign Minister Pik Botha, Defence Minister Magnus Malan and Military Intelligence Chief C J Van Tonder - were travelling by South African Airways from Johannesburg. Their inbound flight inexplicably cut out a stopover at Frankfurt, which was SAA's European hub, and arrived early at Heathrow. The London embassy booked Botha and five of the party on Pan Am Flight 101 to New York for the signing of the Namibia Independence Agreement at UN headquarters on 22 December 1988. The remaining 17 members of the party returned from Heathrow on the SAA aircraft to Johannesburg.
UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, had been booked to travel by Sabena from Brussels (where he had addressed a Committee of the European Parliament) to New York for the same signing ceremony. However, Carlsson was persuaded by the South Africans to stopover at Heathrow and became the most high profile of the 270 Lockerbie victims.
Apartheid South Africa is thus intimately involved and might even have planned and executed the bombing without the involvement of any other country. This scenario neatly explains why Botha & Co did not need any forewarning by the CIA, and destroys the myth that they were "hauled off" the flight.
While it might be judicially and politically convenient now to shift the blame from the ailing Abdelbaset Megrahi to the dead terrorist Abu Nidal, we would be no nearer to the truth about the Lockerbie bombing. I continue to believe that, to get to the truth, a United Nations Inquiry into the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) is required. Let us hope that when the new US president takes office next January we will finally get this UN Inquiry.
Lockerbie questions demand an answer
This is the headline over an article in today's issue of The Times by Magnus Linklater, the newspaper's Scotland Editor (and the editor of The Scotsman in the bygone days when that title was still a serious and responsible journal).
The article reads in part:
'You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognise that nagging questions have gnawed away at the Lockerbie case since the first investigations began. The veteran campaigner, Tam Dalyell, who describes himself as a “professor of Lockerbie studies”, is convinced that neither al-Megrahi nor the Libyan Government had any involvement. He, along with the Rev John Mosey and Dr Jim Swire, who both lost daughters in the atrocity, believe that there has been a spectacular miscarriage of justice.
'They have raised questions about basic evidence in the original case. They have challenged eyewitness accounts offered by the chief prosecution witness, the Maltese shopowner who originally identified Megrahi as a suspect. They have raised doubts about the forensic evidence, and have pointed out that al-Megrahi, a civilised and intelligent man, is a most unlikely terrorist.
'Last weekend, their campaign was given fresh impetus when Robert Fisk, the veteran Middle East correspondent, reported that Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist responsible for some of the worst attacks of the 1970s and 1980s, may have been working for the Americans before the invasion of Iraq. Secret documents - the very phrase is a conspiracy idiom - written by Saddam Hussein's security services state that he had been colluding with the Americans trying to find evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda. Abu Nidal's alleged suicide in 2002 may have been an execution by the Iraqis for his betrayal.
'From this tenuous connection stems the idea that the US security services may have had previous contacts within Abu Nidal's terrorist organisation, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which many experts have long believed was the real perpetrator of Lockerbie.
'Mr Dalyell, who thinks there may be some weight to this theory, points to incidents such as notices that went up in the US Embassy in Moscow in the days before the bombing, warning diplomats not to travel on PanAm flights, and how senior South African figures were hauled off the plane before the flight, almost as if there had been advance warning.
'For me, this kind of evidence strays into the territory of “the second gunman theory” that bedevilled the Kennedy assassination. But there is one aspect of the case that I have never understood: why was it that, for the first 18 months of the investigation, Scottish police, US investigators and European security agents were convinced that the perpetrators were Abu Nidal's PFLP? And why was it that, in the run-up to the Gulf War, when good relations with Syria and Iran were important to Western interests, attention switched abruptly from Abu Nidal's terrorists, and on to Libya?
'These matters have never satisfactorily been explained, and in the interests of common justice they should be addressed. For the sake of the Flight 103 victims, for the wider interests of Western security, and for the man now dying in a Scottish prison, there is a need for a proper inquiry. It does not have to be as wideranging as the Warren Commission that examined the Kennedy case, but it does need to be international, and to have US backing. The appeal in Edinburgh next year will examine legal aspects of the case, but it cannot extend to the wider issues that demand resolution.
'Just possibly a new president taking office next January will find in his in-tray persuasive evidence pointing to a reopening of the case. There are powerful moral reasons for dusting it off and asking a basic question: who was responsible for Britain's worst terrorist outrage?'
The full article can be accessed here.
The article reads in part:
'You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognise that nagging questions have gnawed away at the Lockerbie case since the first investigations began. The veteran campaigner, Tam Dalyell, who describes himself as a “professor of Lockerbie studies”, is convinced that neither al-Megrahi nor the Libyan Government had any involvement. He, along with the Rev John Mosey and Dr Jim Swire, who both lost daughters in the atrocity, believe that there has been a spectacular miscarriage of justice.
'They have raised questions about basic evidence in the original case. They have challenged eyewitness accounts offered by the chief prosecution witness, the Maltese shopowner who originally identified Megrahi as a suspect. They have raised doubts about the forensic evidence, and have pointed out that al-Megrahi, a civilised and intelligent man, is a most unlikely terrorist.
'Last weekend, their campaign was given fresh impetus when Robert Fisk, the veteran Middle East correspondent, reported that Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist responsible for some of the worst attacks of the 1970s and 1980s, may have been working for the Americans before the invasion of Iraq. Secret documents - the very phrase is a conspiracy idiom - written by Saddam Hussein's security services state that he had been colluding with the Americans trying to find evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda. Abu Nidal's alleged suicide in 2002 may have been an execution by the Iraqis for his betrayal.
'From this tenuous connection stems the idea that the US security services may have had previous contacts within Abu Nidal's terrorist organisation, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which many experts have long believed was the real perpetrator of Lockerbie.
'Mr Dalyell, who thinks there may be some weight to this theory, points to incidents such as notices that went up in the US Embassy in Moscow in the days before the bombing, warning diplomats not to travel on PanAm flights, and how senior South African figures were hauled off the plane before the flight, almost as if there had been advance warning.
'For me, this kind of evidence strays into the territory of “the second gunman theory” that bedevilled the Kennedy assassination. But there is one aspect of the case that I have never understood: why was it that, for the first 18 months of the investigation, Scottish police, US investigators and European security agents were convinced that the perpetrators were Abu Nidal's PFLP? And why was it that, in the run-up to the Gulf War, when good relations with Syria and Iran were important to Western interests, attention switched abruptly from Abu Nidal's terrorists, and on to Libya?
'These matters have never satisfactorily been explained, and in the interests of common justice they should be addressed. For the sake of the Flight 103 victims, for the wider interests of Western security, and for the man now dying in a Scottish prison, there is a need for a proper inquiry. It does not have to be as wideranging as the Warren Commission that examined the Kennedy case, but it does need to be international, and to have US backing. The appeal in Edinburgh next year will examine legal aspects of the case, but it cannot extend to the wider issues that demand resolution.
'Just possibly a new president taking office next January will find in his in-tray persuasive evidence pointing to a reopening of the case. There are powerful moral reasons for dusting it off and asking a basic question: who was responsible for Britain's worst terrorist outrage?'
The full article can be accessed here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)