The U.S. said Sunday it has begun transferring more than $500 million in Libyan compensation money to the families of American victims of the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland.
More money is on the way to complete the settlement, but $504 million of $536 million to be distributed to the families was moved from the Treasury to a private account administered by Lockerbie families' lawyers on Friday, the top U.S. diplomat for the Mideast said.
David Welch spoke to reporters aboard Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's plane as she returned to Washington from the Middle East. He said he expected the rest of the Lockerbie payments would be made soon as soon as administrative details were worked out.
The cash comes from a $1.5 billion fund for U.S. victims of Libyan-linked terrorism in the 1980s that Libya finished paying into last month. (...)
Libya's payment into the fund cleared the last hurdle in full normalization of ties between Washington and Tripoli. On Oct. 31, President Bush signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing pending compensation cases. (...)
There has been 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, Associated Press]
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Lockerbie Reflections
This is the title of a lengthy post on Ed's Blog City which takes the line that Pan Am flight 103 was probably a revenge attack for the downing of Iran Air flight 655 by the USS Vincennes on 3 July 1988. The article links the official stonewalling over Lockerbie to the Shirley McKie case. It also points out the involvement in Lockerbie of various notorious (some might say murky) characters on the US intelligence scene.
The post can be read here.
The post can be read here.
Saturday, 8 November 2008
20 years on and Lockerbie victim's father still searches for the truth
This is the headline over a moving article on the website of the Sunday Mercury, a newspaper serving largely the English midlands. It consists largely of interviews with Jim and Jane Swire. It reads in part:
'... Jim pledged to win justice for his daughter and all those killed on Pan Am Flight 103. Yet over the years he has become convinced the Libyans were not involved.
'He said: “The evidence points to the involvement of Iran and Syria, not Libya. The case against al-Megrahi, I believe is invalid.”
'Jim believes the Lockerbie bombing was a revenge attack against the Americans who had ordered an Iranian Airbus to be shot down months before Lockerbie killing 290 innocent people.
'He also believes a Syrian terror group had amassed a cache of bombs designed for infiltration into European airports, explosives would sense the drop of pressure as an aircraft climbed into the skies - and would explode about 40 minutes after take-off.
'And the Lockerbie bomb, he claims, may have been handed to and planted by an insider at Heathrow during a break-in the night before the disaster.
'But with al-Megrahi serving a life sentence, he fears the true story will never be known unless the conviction is overturned.
'Jim added: “I believe that the truth will never come out while I am alive. Justice will not be done in my lifetime.”
'Soon after Lockerbie Jim and Jane planted young trees in the grounds of their family home in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, which they named Flora’s Wood.
'The trees are mature now and still stand there today, despite the couple selling the house in 2002. They were planted in the shape of an F for Flora, a poignant outline that can still be seen from satellite pictures on Google Earth.'
The full article can be read here.
'... Jim pledged to win justice for his daughter and all those killed on Pan Am Flight 103. Yet over the years he has become convinced the Libyans were not involved.
'He said: “The evidence points to the involvement of Iran and Syria, not Libya. The case against al-Megrahi, I believe is invalid.”
'Jim believes the Lockerbie bombing was a revenge attack against the Americans who had ordered an Iranian Airbus to be shot down months before Lockerbie killing 290 innocent people.
'He also believes a Syrian terror group had amassed a cache of bombs designed for infiltration into European airports, explosives would sense the drop of pressure as an aircraft climbed into the skies - and would explode about 40 minutes after take-off.
'And the Lockerbie bomb, he claims, may have been handed to and planted by an insider at Heathrow during a break-in the night before the disaster.
'But with al-Megrahi serving a life sentence, he fears the true story will never be known unless the conviction is overturned.
'Jim added: “I believe that the truth will never come out while I am alive. Justice will not be done in my lifetime.”
'Soon after Lockerbie Jim and Jane planted young trees in the grounds of their family home in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, which they named Flora’s Wood.
'The trees are mature now and still stand there today, despite the couple selling the house in 2002. They were planted in the shape of an F for Flora, a poignant outline that can still be seen from satellite pictures on Google Earth.'
The full article can be read here.
Op-ed from The Tripoli Post
Will Justice be Served? Will Al-Megrahi be Released from Prison Soon?
By Zainab Al-Arabi
07/11/2008 22:44:00
Yes I know that this week the eyes and ears of the world are concentrated on America and the new President-elect, Barack Obama; that the United Nations and various human rights organisations are calling for help concerning the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo. But my thoughts are with Abdul Basit Al-Megarhi, the Libyan man wrongly convicted of mass murder in the Lockerbie case, who has been in prison since 1999.
The news that he has been diagnosed with advanced-stage prostate cancer has stunned many Libyans. For years his appeals for a re-examination of the evidence against him had been refused, and only last year was this even considered a possibility.
The case for a re-trial is strongly put forward by many experts in the field of law, perhaps the most eminent of whom is Professor Robert Black (born and raised in Lockerbie, Scotland). Often referred to as the architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, he has been sceptical of the grounds on which the court delivered its sentence for years.
Based on his assessment of the evidence and the witnesses, he is convinced that a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place. This seemed to be more evident when a British court ruled in early 2008, in answer to a request by the Appeals Court in October, 2007, that certain documents deliberately withheld from Al-Megarhi’s defence lawyers by the prosecution, could not be released due to reasons of ‘National Security’.
Finally in October 2008, the defence lawyers request for a hearing was approved. The next hearing in the High Court in Edinburgh is planned to take place on the 21st of November 2008. On the question of whether Al-Megarhi has the right to be released on bail while his case is under review by the Scottish court, Professor Black (on his website) answers,” yes.
What matters is whether the grounds of appeal (1) if successful, would lead to the conviction being quashed and (2) are arguable, i.e. 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.”
Al-Megarhi has requested that the privacy of his family be respected, and that he would prefer to undergo medical treatment in Scotland if exonerated. The Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs has reportedly also informed Libya on the 25th of October that it would welcome Al-Megarhi for medical treatment on his release.
The Swiss company, Mebo Ltd, the makers of the device allegedly used in the Lockerbie bombing, have their own ‘Lockerbie’ website in which they call Al-Megarhi the ‘271st Lockerbie victim’.
Their claim is that the evidence produced by the prosecution was misleading and false.
In his most recent comment on the subject, “The Scotsman” reported on 7 July 2007 that the United Nations observer Dr. Hans Köchler has written to Mr. Salmond and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of Scotland, calling for experts from countries not involved in the case to investigate the way the investigation was conducted by UK and US authorities.
In his letter, Dr. Köchler called for a full and independent public inquiry of the Lockerbie case and its handling by the Scottish judiciary as well as the British and US political and intelligence establishments.
He also called for the SCCRC’s full report to be made public. Although he was included in talks regarding prisoner exchange between Libya and Britain, Al-Megarhi has refused to leave his prison in Scotland until his innocence was proven.
According to Jim Swire, spokesman for the UK Family Group, whose daughter was among the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy, stated that the families of the UK victims agreed that Al-Megarhi should be released for compassionate reasons whatever the outcome of SCCRC hearing.
Even though they might not all be convinced of his innocence, they saw no reason to keep a dying man in prison far from his country and family.
Dr.Swire has been to Libya on several occasions and has stated that he is not convinced of the court’s sentencing. He has continued to press the British government for a new investigation. Will justice be served?
By Zainab Al-Arabi
07/11/2008 22:44:00
Yes I know that this week the eyes and ears of the world are concentrated on America and the new President-elect, Barack Obama; that the United Nations and various human rights organisations are calling for help concerning the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo. But my thoughts are with Abdul Basit Al-Megarhi, the Libyan man wrongly convicted of mass murder in the Lockerbie case, who has been in prison since 1999.
The news that he has been diagnosed with advanced-stage prostate cancer has stunned many Libyans. For years his appeals for a re-examination of the evidence against him had been refused, and only last year was this even considered a possibility.
The case for a re-trial is strongly put forward by many experts in the field of law, perhaps the most eminent of whom is Professor Robert Black (born and raised in Lockerbie, Scotland). Often referred to as the architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, he has been sceptical of the grounds on which the court delivered its sentence for years.
Based on his assessment of the evidence and the witnesses, he is convinced that a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place. This seemed to be more evident when a British court ruled in early 2008, in answer to a request by the Appeals Court in October, 2007, that certain documents deliberately withheld from Al-Megarhi’s defence lawyers by the prosecution, could not be released due to reasons of ‘National Security’.
Finally in October 2008, the defence lawyers request for a hearing was approved. The next hearing in the High Court in Edinburgh is planned to take place on the 21st of November 2008. On the question of whether Al-Megarhi has the right to be released on bail while his case is under review by the Scottish court, Professor Black (on his website) answers,” yes.
What matters is whether the grounds of appeal (1) if successful, would lead to the conviction being quashed and (2) are arguable, i.e. 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.”
Al-Megarhi has requested that the privacy of his family be respected, and that he would prefer to undergo medical treatment in Scotland if exonerated. The Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs has reportedly also informed Libya on the 25th of October that it would welcome Al-Megarhi for medical treatment on his release.
The Swiss company, Mebo Ltd, the makers of the device allegedly used in the Lockerbie bombing, have their own ‘Lockerbie’ website in which they call Al-Megarhi the ‘271st Lockerbie victim’.
Their claim is that the evidence produced by the prosecution was misleading and false.
In his most recent comment on the subject, “The Scotsman” reported on 7 July 2007 that the United Nations observer Dr. Hans Köchler has written to Mr. Salmond and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of Scotland, calling for experts from countries not involved in the case to investigate the way the investigation was conducted by UK and US authorities.
In his letter, Dr. Köchler called for a full and independent public inquiry of the Lockerbie case and its handling by the Scottish judiciary as well as the British and US political and intelligence establishments.
He also called for the SCCRC’s full report to be made public. Although he was included in talks regarding prisoner exchange between Libya and Britain, Al-Megarhi has refused to leave his prison in Scotland until his innocence was proven.
According to Jim Swire, spokesman for the UK Family Group, whose daughter was among the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy, stated that the families of the UK victims agreed that Al-Megarhi should be released for compassionate reasons whatever the outcome of SCCRC hearing.
Even though they might not all be convinced of his innocence, they saw no reason to keep a dying man in prison far from his country and family.
Dr.Swire has been to Libya on several occasions and has stated that he is not convinced of the court’s sentencing. He has continued to press the British government for a new investigation. Will justice be served?
Friday, 7 November 2008
Scottish "heavies" on the bail hearing
There is good coverage in both The Herald and The Scotsman of yesterday's interim liberation hearing. Lucy Adams's article in The Herald is entitled "Lockerbie bomber bail ruling deferred" and contains a useful synopsis of the arguments advanced by both the appellant and the Crown.
John Robertson's article in The Scotsman is headlined "'Compelling' case to free dying Megrahi but Crown insists he must remain behind bars" and predicts that the judges will announce their decision in days rather than weeks.
John Robertson's article in The Scotsman is headlined "'Compelling' case to free dying Megrahi but Crown insists he must remain behind bars" and predicts that the judges will announce their decision in days rather than weeks.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Avizandum
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.
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.
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.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)