This is the headline over a long article in the US news magazine Newsday published to coincide with President Bush's phone call to Colonel Gaddafi expressing his satisfaction at the final Libyan payment into the compensation fund. It reads in part:
'For Siobhan Mulroy, who lost six relatives when a terrorist bomb ripped apart a Pan Am 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland, the final restitution from Libya doesn't bring relief, or satisfaction, or closure. The feeling, she said, is closer to revulsion.
'"It's kind of a repulsive situation to be in where people are offering money, I guess, to make you feel better," said Mulroy of East Northport, who lost her father, brother, sister-in-law, uncle, aunt and cousin. (...)
'"I'm glad that the president is satisfied with it. I'm certainly not," said Peter Lowenstein of Montauk, whose son, Alexander, was one of 35 Syracuse University students on the flight who had been in London for the semester. "I don't recall him losing a relative on Flight 103.
'"His interest is to satisfy the oil industry, who are major supporters of his. ... He wants what they want, which is to get Libyan oil."
'Daniel Tobin, who lost his brother Mark Tobin of Hempstead, said the money doesn't put the issue to rest.
'"So many have forgotten us. ... I'm still concerned that Exxon Mobil and other oil companies, that they're able to do business with Gadhafi," said Tobin, also of Hempstead. "They're allowed to do business with terrorists."'
The full article can be read here. Interestingly, it contains a timeline of significant events relating to the Lockerbie tragedy. It omits all reference to the fact that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi has been referred back to the High Court on the ground that it may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. When are the media in the United States going to wake up to the fact that the officially-approved Libyan guilt scenario is under severe attack and is highly unlikely to survive?
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
Monday, 17 November 2008
A dilemma more moral than legal
Keeping a dying man in jail pending appeal is unnecessary on the part of the Scottish court of criminal appeal
The refusal of the Scottish court of criminal appeal to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on bail while he awaits his appeal against his conviction as the Lockerbie bomber, has added unease to unease. It was not edifying to see lawyers quibble about when Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, is expected to die, then have the judge base his bail decision on that prediction.
At the Scottish court of criminal appeal, Lord Hamilton concluded that he might have a few more years left and therefore should not be released pending appeal. By way of consolation, he ruled that should his condition deteriorate more rapidly than expected, he could renew his application. What concerns me is that his appeal is unlikely to be heard before the summer. Why?
There has, for years, been a feeling among lawyers and others who have studied the case that Megrahi was not responsible for the bombing. Even Dr Jim Swire, the most prominent campaigner on behalf of Lockerbie victims, whose daughter died in the bombing, does not believe in his guilt; nor do the relatives of many other victims.
It has been alleged that because of the desire to have sanctions lifted against Libya, Muammar Gadafy delivered him to the Scottish authorities rather than the principal perpetrator. [RB: I am not aware of anyone having suggested that Megrahi was handed over in substitution for some other Libyan perpetrator.] The evidence against Megrahi has always seemed slightly deficient although, of course, the jury had convicted him [sic; he was in fact convicted by a court of three judges], and an appeal court in 2002 had turned down his first appeal.
Last year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission studied new evidence and decided it was enough to justify Megrahi being granted another appeal. That does not mean the commission necessarily believes he is innocent, nor that the appeal court will necessarily overturn his conviction. But it does mean that he has a strong case.
Here's the dilemma - more moral than legal. If he is innocent, keeping a dying man in jail pending his appeal is a particularly cruel injustice to add to that of his years in prison. So why does the appeal have to wait so long? There can be no logistical reason.
[From an article by Marcel Berlins in The Guardian.]
The refusal of the Scottish court of criminal appeal to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on bail while he awaits his appeal against his conviction as the Lockerbie bomber, has added unease to unease. It was not edifying to see lawyers quibble about when Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, is expected to die, then have the judge base his bail decision on that prediction.
At the Scottish court of criminal appeal, Lord Hamilton concluded that he might have a few more years left and therefore should not be released pending appeal. By way of consolation, he ruled that should his condition deteriorate more rapidly than expected, he could renew his application. What concerns me is that his appeal is unlikely to be heard before the summer. Why?
There has, for years, been a feeling among lawyers and others who have studied the case that Megrahi was not responsible for the bombing. Even Dr Jim Swire, the most prominent campaigner on behalf of Lockerbie victims, whose daughter died in the bombing, does not believe in his guilt; nor do the relatives of many other victims.
It has been alleged that because of the desire to have sanctions lifted against Libya, Muammar Gadafy delivered him to the Scottish authorities rather than the principal perpetrator. [RB: I am not aware of anyone having suggested that Megrahi was handed over in substitution for some other Libyan perpetrator.] The evidence against Megrahi has always seemed slightly deficient although, of course, the jury had convicted him [sic; he was in fact convicted by a court of three judges], and an appeal court in 2002 had turned down his first appeal.
Last year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission studied new evidence and decided it was enough to justify Megrahi being granted another appeal. That does not mean the commission necessarily believes he is innocent, nor that the appeal court will necessarily overturn his conviction. But it does mean that he has a strong case.
Here's the dilemma - more moral than legal. If he is innocent, keeping a dying man in jail pending his appeal is a particularly cruel injustice to add to that of his years in prison. So why does the appeal have to wait so long? There can be no logistical reason.
[From an article by Marcel Berlins in The Guardian.]
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Mrs Megrahi speaks
The wife of convicted Lockerbie bomber Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi said in an interview published on Sunday that her husband is critically ill with cancer and slammed Scotland's authorities for not taking better care of him.
Aisha al-Megrahi spoke to the daily Oea, considered close to Seif al-Islam, the son of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi, after a Scottish court on Friday rejected her husband's appeal to be freed on bail because of his illness.
"Hospitals in Scotland refused to take him in because of the increased security involved in transferring him, especially the use of helicopters," Oea quoted her as saying.
And despite increased surveillance "he remains handcuffed to the bed when he is examined, which affects his morale badly," she added. (…)
His lawyers applied for his interim release after announcing last month that he has prostate cancer which has spread to other parts of his body.
But on Friday the Appeal Court in Edinburgh ruled that he could live for years depending on how successful his treatment is.
"While the disease from which the appellant suffers is incurable and may cause his death, he is not at present suffering material pain or disability," Lord Justice General Arthur Hamilton said.
The Libyan newspaper slammed the ruling as "inhuman" and accused the judicial authorities in Scotland of "politicising the trial" of Megrahi.
"We expected justice to atone for the sin of condemning an innocent man convicted for political reasons, and ease his suffering", the paper wrote, and accused the Scottish judges of having been "stripped of their humanity". (…)
On Friday Megrahi, who is being held at Greenock prison in western Scotland, voiced deep disappointment.
"I am very distressed that the court has refused me bail pending the hearing of my appeal, and the chance to spend my remaining time with my family," he said in a statement read out by his lawyer Tony Kelly.
"I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing, and that the fight for justice will continue whether or not I'm alive to witness my name being cleared."
[From an article by the news agency Agence France Presse.
The story has been picked up in Monday's issue of The Scotsman. It can be read here.]
Aisha al-Megrahi spoke to the daily Oea, considered close to Seif al-Islam, the son of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi, after a Scottish court on Friday rejected her husband's appeal to be freed on bail because of his illness.
"Hospitals in Scotland refused to take him in because of the increased security involved in transferring him, especially the use of helicopters," Oea quoted her as saying.
And despite increased surveillance "he remains handcuffed to the bed when he is examined, which affects his morale badly," she added. (…)
His lawyers applied for his interim release after announcing last month that he has prostate cancer which has spread to other parts of his body.
But on Friday the Appeal Court in Edinburgh ruled that he could live for years depending on how successful his treatment is.
"While the disease from which the appellant suffers is incurable and may cause his death, he is not at present suffering material pain or disability," Lord Justice General Arthur Hamilton said.
The Libyan newspaper slammed the ruling as "inhuman" and accused the judicial authorities in Scotland of "politicising the trial" of Megrahi.
"We expected justice to atone for the sin of condemning an innocent man convicted for political reasons, and ease his suffering", the paper wrote, and accused the Scottish judges of having been "stripped of their humanity". (…)
On Friday Megrahi, who is being held at Greenock prison in western Scotland, voiced deep disappointment.
"I am very distressed that the court has refused me bail pending the hearing of my appeal, and the chance to spend my remaining time with my family," he said in a statement read out by his lawyer Tony Kelly.
"I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing, and that the fight for justice will continue whether or not I'm alive to witness my name being cleared."
[From an article by the news agency Agence France Presse.
The story has been picked up in Monday's issue of The Scotsman. It can be read here.]
UK Sunday newspapers on bail refusal
As far as I can see, only two UK Sunday newspapers feature stories related to the High Court's refusal of interim liberation to Mr Megrahi.
Scotland on Sunday's health correspondent, Kate Foster, provides an article on the difficulties that face his legal advisers of supplying to the court (or to the Scottish Government, if an application were made for compassionate release) a medical prognosis that indicates how long he has to live. An unnamed source is quoted as follows:
"All the doctors will say is that this is terminal and it's not their job to predict how long he has to live. That's the problem his legal team faces. The doctors won't commit themselves. The court is saying that if he gets a prognosis, then by all means come back. But the doctors simply won't give a prognosis. It's the nature of this particular condition and the fact he is on hormone treatment."
The Sunday Express picks up the story, run yesterday as an exclusive by The Herald, about Dr Jim Swire saying that, if Mr Megrahi dies before his appeal is decided, he (Swire) might seek to be recognised by the court as having a legitimate interest to continue it. Of course, if a member of Mr Megrahi's family (eg wife, child, sibling) were prepared to take over the appeal on his death, this would spare the High Court from having to decide whether the relative of a murder victim qualifies as having a legitimate interest to continue the appeal of the person convicted of the murder. The article can be read here.
Scotland on Sunday's health correspondent, Kate Foster, provides an article on the difficulties that face his legal advisers of supplying to the court (or to the Scottish Government, if an application were made for compassionate release) a medical prognosis that indicates how long he has to live. An unnamed source is quoted as follows:
"All the doctors will say is that this is terminal and it's not their job to predict how long he has to live. That's the problem his legal team faces. The doctors won't commit themselves. The court is saying that if he gets a prognosis, then by all means come back. But the doctors simply won't give a prognosis. It's the nature of this particular condition and the fact he is on hormone treatment."
The Sunday Express picks up the story, run yesterday as an exclusive by The Herald, about Dr Jim Swire saying that, if Mr Megrahi dies before his appeal is decided, he (Swire) might seek to be recognised by the court as having a legitimate interest to continue it. Of course, if a member of Mr Megrahi's family (eg wife, child, sibling) were prepared to take over the appeal on his death, this would spare the High Court from having to decide whether the relative of a murder victim qualifies as having a legitimate interest to continue the appeal of the person convicted of the murder. The article can be read here.
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Swire: I will carry on appeal if Megrahi dies in jail
The Herald runs an article by Lucy Adams with this title. The relevant portion reads:
'The father of a woman killed over Lockerbie yesterday vowed to stand in and continue the appeal of the Libyan convicted of the bombing if he dies "before justice is done".
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 23, died in the tragedy 20 years ago, has taken legal advice and believes he would be able to pursue the case if Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi cannot. (...)
'Dr Swire said he felt the court had missed a "golden opportunity" in not granting Megrahi bail and he would pursue the appeal personally.
'He told The Herald last night: "I understand that someone with a legitimate interest in the case can continue the appeal provided they apply within three months of the death of the person who lodged the appeal. So the Libyan Government or his family or one of the relatives could apply to pursue the appeal.
'"I very much hope Megrahi will live to see it completed but, if he does not, then I will look to pursue it. The defence has said there is new evidence and it sounds like pretty potent stuff. We would want to hear this in court. I have reason to believe there would be solicitors and advocates who would be willing to take this up on a pro bono free basis."'
[The issue of transfer of rights of appeal if an appellant dies before his appeal is determined is dealt with in this post in this blog. Here is what Mr Megrahi himself said in the statement issued yesterday on his behalf:
"I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing and that the fight for justice will continue, regardless of whether I am alive to witness my name being cleared."]
'The father of a woman killed over Lockerbie yesterday vowed to stand in and continue the appeal of the Libyan convicted of the bombing if he dies "before justice is done".
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 23, died in the tragedy 20 years ago, has taken legal advice and believes he would be able to pursue the case if Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi cannot. (...)
'Dr Swire said he felt the court had missed a "golden opportunity" in not granting Megrahi bail and he would pursue the appeal personally.
'He told The Herald last night: "I understand that someone with a legitimate interest in the case can continue the appeal provided they apply within three months of the death of the person who lodged the appeal. So the Libyan Government or his family or one of the relatives could apply to pursue the appeal.
'"I very much hope Megrahi will live to see it completed but, if he does not, then I will look to pursue it. The defence has said there is new evidence and it sounds like pretty potent stuff. We would want to hear this in court. I have reason to believe there would be solicitors and advocates who would be willing to take this up on a pro bono free basis."'
[The issue of transfer of rights of appeal if an appellant dies before his appeal is determined is dealt with in this post in this blog. Here is what Mr Megrahi himself said in the statement issued yesterday on his behalf:
"I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing and that the fight for justice will continue, regardless of whether I am alive to witness my name being cleared."]
Lockerbie mum’s wish
A mother whose son was killed in the Lockerbie bombings last night said she hoped a fresh appeal would reveal the truth behind her son’s death.
Terminally-ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was yesterday refused bail at an Appeal Court hearing in Edinburgh.
He is serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years for the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died, including Alistair Berkley, 29, of Sandhoe, near Hexham, Northumberland. (...)
If he were to be granted an appeal, all the evidence surrounding the attack would be reinvestigated, a move supported by Alistair’s mother, Jean.
Last night she said she was confident Megrahi would receive the right medical attention while he was in prison.
She said: “I don’t have any strong feelings about whether he should get bail or not.
“In these circumstances I’m sure he will get the same medical treatment as if he was out of prison.
“The news that he has got a fatal illness obviously just makes us want what we’ve always wanted – for the appeal to go on.”
Alistair, a law lecturer, was on board the Pan Am Flight 103, travelling from his workplace in London to New York. (...)
The Berkley family have never been totally satisfied with the conviction of Libyan intelligence agent Megrahi in Holland in early 2001.
And last night Mrs Berkley, 78, said she was still looking for the truth behind her son’s death. She said: “I am not vindictive about the whole thing – I know that some people are, but I am not.
“We feel there is a lot more that we don’t know. We’ve been hoping there would be another appeal because it’s another opportunity to find out what happened.
“I’m co-ordinator of the UK’s family group and we all think there is a great deal that we should know. Everybody knows there were more people involved than just Megrahi.” (...)
[From Journal Live, a news website covering mainly the Northeast of England. The full article can be read here.]
Terminally-ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was yesterday refused bail at an Appeal Court hearing in Edinburgh.
He is serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years for the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died, including Alistair Berkley, 29, of Sandhoe, near Hexham, Northumberland. (...)
If he were to be granted an appeal, all the evidence surrounding the attack would be reinvestigated, a move supported by Alistair’s mother, Jean.
Last night she said she was confident Megrahi would receive the right medical attention while he was in prison.
She said: “I don’t have any strong feelings about whether he should get bail or not.
“In these circumstances I’m sure he will get the same medical treatment as if he was out of prison.
“The news that he has got a fatal illness obviously just makes us want what we’ve always wanted – for the appeal to go on.”
Alistair, a law lecturer, was on board the Pan Am Flight 103, travelling from his workplace in London to New York. (...)
The Berkley family have never been totally satisfied with the conviction of Libyan intelligence agent Megrahi in Holland in early 2001.
And last night Mrs Berkley, 78, said she was still looking for the truth behind her son’s death. She said: “I am not vindictive about the whole thing – I know that some people are, but I am not.
“We feel there is a lot more that we don’t know. We’ve been hoping there would be another appeal because it’s another opportunity to find out what happened.
“I’m co-ordinator of the UK’s family group and we all think there is a great deal that we should know. Everybody knows there were more people involved than just Megrahi.” (...)
[From Journal Live, a news website covering mainly the Northeast of England. The full article can be read here.]
UK press coverage of the bail refusal
The Herald
Lucy Adams, the paper’s chief reporter, provides a lengthy report on yesterday’s proceedings and quotes reactions from Jim Swire, Tam Dalyell and US relative Robert Monetti. The paper also prints a letter from Dr Swire and an editorial on the subject.
The Scotsman
John Robertson and Michael Howie jointly contribute a report on the outcome of the interim liberation application. The article incorporates with short pieces by Jim Swire arguing that Megrahi should be released and by US relative Daniel Cohen arguing that he should not.
The Times
Charlene Sweeney provides a lengthy article on the court hearing and reaction to it. She quotes the statements from Megrahi’s lawyer, Tony Kelly, and from Jim Swire that were reproduced yesterday on this blog. I am quoted as saying: “It would have required something really exceptional by way of injury to his health to overcome the fact he murdered 270 people. The court is of the view that his health has not reached that state.” What I actually said was “It would have required something really exceptional by way of injury to his health to overcome the fact he stands convicted of murdering 270 people.” I do not believe that Abdelbaset Megrahi had anything whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie atrocity. The paper also runs a feature entitled “Should the Lockerbie bomber's appeal succeed?” which contains a “pro” piece by me and a “con” piece by Daniel Cohen.
The Guardian
This paper confines itself, disappointingly, to a brief narration of the outcome of the hearing.
Lucy Adams, the paper’s chief reporter, provides a lengthy report on yesterday’s proceedings and quotes reactions from Jim Swire, Tam Dalyell and US relative Robert Monetti. The paper also prints a letter from Dr Swire and an editorial on the subject.
The Scotsman
John Robertson and Michael Howie jointly contribute a report on the outcome of the interim liberation application. The article incorporates with short pieces by Jim Swire arguing that Megrahi should be released and by US relative Daniel Cohen arguing that he should not.
The Times
Charlene Sweeney provides a lengthy article on the court hearing and reaction to it. She quotes the statements from Megrahi’s lawyer, Tony Kelly, and from Jim Swire that were reproduced yesterday on this blog. I am quoted as saying: “It would have required something really exceptional by way of injury to his health to overcome the fact he murdered 270 people. The court is of the view that his health has not reached that state.” What I actually said was “It would have required something really exceptional by way of injury to his health to overcome the fact he stands convicted of murdering 270 people.” I do not believe that Abdelbaset Megrahi had anything whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie atrocity. The paper also runs a feature entitled “Should the Lockerbie bomber's appeal succeed?” which contains a “pro” piece by me and a “con” piece by Daniel Cohen.
The Guardian
This paper confines itself, disappointingly, to a brief narration of the outcome of the hearing.
Friday, 14 November 2008
Statement from Dr Jim Swire
Interim release is usually only granted where a prisoner's appeal appears to have a serious prospect of success.
In Mr Megrahi's case, the SCCRC decided after three years of scrutiny that his trial might have been a miscarriage of justice. Against that finding it does not look as if his petition for interim release could have failed to meet that criterion.
The possibilities of further offending or of absconding in this case are reduced almost to the absurd by the pernicious mix of a deadly illness, and the high public profile which this man endures.
The briefest look at the actions of the Libyan regime over the last 8 years or so indicates that any inappropriate or clandestine intervention on their part would be totally illogical and extremely counterproductive to their recent progress internationally.
It is difficult therefore to see what justification there could be for today's decision.
It is of course true that with so many victims' relatives involved there would have been harsh criticism from some had he been released, and for some of those it would have caused real distress.
It has however never been a goal of our group to seek revenge, and the refusal of a return to his family for a dying man, whose verdict is not even yet secure, looks uncomfortably like either an aspect of revenge or perhaps timidity.
It seems tragic that Scottish justice has missed a golden opportunity to display mercy in a situation where it has been unable to complete the appeal process within a reasonable time frame. It must bear some responsibility for the dilemmas posed by having a dying man in its custody, whose guilt or innocence it still has not finally decided.
Prime Minister William Gladstone's words "justice delayed is justice denied" may come to have a terrible resonance for Mr Megrahi, and will now interminably stalk the future reputation of Scottish justice.
No doubt the prisoner will now apply to Kenny MacAskill for release on compassionate grounds. Personally I hope that he does, and that he succeeds. A mix of compassion and courage is required. Both Christian virtues I believe.
Dr Jim Swire UK Families-Flight 103
In Mr Megrahi's case, the SCCRC decided after three years of scrutiny that his trial might have been a miscarriage of justice. Against that finding it does not look as if his petition for interim release could have failed to meet that criterion.
The possibilities of further offending or of absconding in this case are reduced almost to the absurd by the pernicious mix of a deadly illness, and the high public profile which this man endures.
The briefest look at the actions of the Libyan regime over the last 8 years or so indicates that any inappropriate or clandestine intervention on their part would be totally illogical and extremely counterproductive to their recent progress internationally.
It is difficult therefore to see what justification there could be for today's decision.
It is of course true that with so many victims' relatives involved there would have been harsh criticism from some had he been released, and for some of those it would have caused real distress.
It has however never been a goal of our group to seek revenge, and the refusal of a return to his family for a dying man, whose verdict is not even yet secure, looks uncomfortably like either an aspect of revenge or perhaps timidity.
It seems tragic that Scottish justice has missed a golden opportunity to display mercy in a situation where it has been unable to complete the appeal process within a reasonable time frame. It must bear some responsibility for the dilemmas posed by having a dying man in its custody, whose guilt or innocence it still has not finally decided.
Prime Minister William Gladstone's words "justice delayed is justice denied" may come to have a terrible resonance for Mr Megrahi, and will now interminably stalk the future reputation of Scottish justice.
No doubt the prisoner will now apply to Kenny MacAskill for release on compassionate grounds. Personally I hope that he does, and that he succeeds. A mix of compassion and courage is required. Both Christian virtues I believe.
Dr Jim Swire UK Families-Flight 103
Press release from Megrahi's lawyers
14th November 2008.
Mr Megrahi was today refused bail pending the hearing of his appeal by the High Court of Justicary.
He said:
“I am very distressed that the Court has refused to grant me bail and denied me the chance to spend my remaining time with my family.
I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing and that the fight for justice will continue, regardless of whether I am alive to witness my name being cleared.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people of Scotland and elsewhere who have taken the time to send me cards and letters of support. Their kindness has touched me and helped me at this difficult time.
I ask that the privacy of my family is respected during this very difficult time.”
Notes for Editors
There is no appeal against the refusal of the application for bail pending the hearing of the appeal. The Court can consider a further application for review of the decision but there must be a change in circumstances to be placed before the Court before it can reconsider the matter.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi back to the High Court of Justiciary on 28th June 2007. Grounds of Appeal were lodged on Mr Megrahi’s behalf on 21st December 2007. The Crown sought to restrict the scope of the Grounds of Appeal submitted on behalf of Mr Megrahi. They submitted that only those Grounds which had been referred back to the Court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission could be heard. In their decision of 15th October 2008 the Court rejected the Crown’s argument and confirmed that Mr Megrahi was entitled to have his stated Grounds of Appeal decided by the Court on their respective merits.
A further hearing in the case has been assigned for 27th and 28th November 2008. At this hearing parties will discuss their proposals in relation to case management, as requested by the Court. Proposals in relation to the appointment of a Special Advocate/Counsel will also be discussed. This relates to the Public Interest Immunity plea taken by the Advocate General for Scotland in relation to a document relied upon by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in their decision to refer. Mr Megrahi has sought disclosure of significant documents for the proper preparation and presentation of his appeal. This application is being opposed by the prosecution. Procedures to resolve this matter will also be discussed on 27th and 28th November 2008.
Mr Megrahi was today refused bail pending the hearing of his appeal by the High Court of Justicary.
He said:
“I am very distressed that the Court has refused to grant me bail and denied me the chance to spend my remaining time with my family.
I wish to reiterate that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the Lockerbie bombing and that the fight for justice will continue, regardless of whether I am alive to witness my name being cleared.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many people of Scotland and elsewhere who have taken the time to send me cards and letters of support. Their kindness has touched me and helped me at this difficult time.
I ask that the privacy of my family is respected during this very difficult time.”
Notes for Editors
There is no appeal against the refusal of the application for bail pending the hearing of the appeal. The Court can consider a further application for review of the decision but there must be a change in circumstances to be placed before the Court before it can reconsider the matter.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi back to the High Court of Justiciary on 28th June 2007. Grounds of Appeal were lodged on Mr Megrahi’s behalf on 21st December 2007. The Crown sought to restrict the scope of the Grounds of Appeal submitted on behalf of Mr Megrahi. They submitted that only those Grounds which had been referred back to the Court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission could be heard. In their decision of 15th October 2008 the Court rejected the Crown’s argument and confirmed that Mr Megrahi was entitled to have his stated Grounds of Appeal decided by the Court on their respective merits.
A further hearing in the case has been assigned for 27th and 28th November 2008. At this hearing parties will discuss their proposals in relation to case management, as requested by the Court. Proposals in relation to the appointment of a Special Advocate/Counsel will also be discussed. This relates to the Public Interest Immunity plea taken by the Advocate General for Scotland in relation to a document relied upon by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in their decision to refer. Mr Megrahi has sought disclosure of significant documents for the proper preparation and presentation of his appeal. This application is being opposed by the prosecution. Procedures to resolve this matter will also be discussed on 27th and 28th November 2008.
Interim liberation refused
The High Court of Justiciary this morning refused Abdelbaset Megrahi's application for interim liberation. The court's view was that the gravity of the crime of which he stands convicted is such that liberation pending his appeal could not reasonably be expected except on compelling compassionate grounds. Their Lordships expressed the view that Mr Megrahi's state of health has not as yet reached the stage where its seriousness overrides the factor of the gravity of the crime. The court indicated that it would be willing to consider a further application for bail if and when his prognosis is clearer or his medical condition deteriorates.
The court's written Opinion can be read here. The report of today's proceedings on the BBC News website can be read here.
The court's written Opinion can be read here. The report of today's proceedings on the BBC News website can be read here.
An anniversary
Seventeen years ago today, on 14 November 1991, the US Department of Justice announced that an indictment had been brought against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah for the murder of the 270 victims of the Lockerbie disaster. The Crown Office in Scotland simultaneously announced that a petition had been presented to the sheriff at Dumfries (the nearest court town to Lockerbie) charging the two Libyans with the murders and that warrants for their arrest had been granted. The Libyan Government was called upon to surrender the men for trial in Scotland or the United States.
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Justice for families of Pan Am 103
On Dec. 21, 1988, my brother was killed aboard Pan Am Flight 103 when it was bombed by Libyan terrorists over Lockerbie, Scotland. Two decades later, my family and the families of the 189 other Americans killed on that flight are finally able to claim some form of justice for our lost loved ones.
The Scottish high court convicted one Libyan intelligence officer for his involvement after the initial investigation, but the complexities of a crime perpetrated by a foreign government made it impossible to seek traditional criminal justice for all those responsible, so we turned to the civil court.
After many painful years of negotiations, the Libyan government finally agreed to pay $10 million to each victim's family. The first 80 percent of this sum was paid as planned, but the Libyan government withheld the remaining 20 percent as it negotiated restored diplomatic relations with the United States. The closer the restoration of these ties came, the harder we fought to ensure that the Libyan government was held accountable for its debt.
In July, the United States and Libya agreed that relations could be normalized only after Libya paid its full debt for its state-sponsored terrorism. On Oct. 31, the Libyan government executed full payment to the victims and their families.
While we may never know the names of all of those involved in this crime or see them face the punishment they so justly deserve, we can gain some peace from forcing the Libyan government to be accountable for its crimes. We thank Sen. Frank Lautenberg and others who stood by us the last two decades.
Kara Weipz
President
Victims of Pan Am Flight 103
[Letter from the president of the largest US organisation of relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster, published in today's issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer]
The Scottish high court convicted one Libyan intelligence officer for his involvement after the initial investigation, but the complexities of a crime perpetrated by a foreign government made it impossible to seek traditional criminal justice for all those responsible, so we turned to the civil court.
After many painful years of negotiations, the Libyan government finally agreed to pay $10 million to each victim's family. The first 80 percent of this sum was paid as planned, but the Libyan government withheld the remaining 20 percent as it negotiated restored diplomatic relations with the United States. The closer the restoration of these ties came, the harder we fought to ensure that the Libyan government was held accountable for its debt.
In July, the United States and Libya agreed that relations could be normalized only after Libya paid its full debt for its state-sponsored terrorism. On Oct. 31, the Libyan government executed full payment to the victims and their families.
While we may never know the names of all of those involved in this crime or see them face the punishment they so justly deserve, we can gain some peace from forcing the Libyan government to be accountable for its crimes. We thank Sen. Frank Lautenberg and others who stood by us the last two decades.
Kara Weipz
President
Victims of Pan Am Flight 103
[Letter from the president of the largest US organisation of relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster, published in today's issue of The Philadelphia Inquirer]
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Decision on interim liberation
Monday, 10 November 2008
Closed minds?
[Here, in its entirety, is a report from Google News, attributed to the UK news agency The Press Association.]
American relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing have been accused of closing their minds to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
The charge came from former MP Tam Dalyell as the Lockerbie saga reached another milestone.
The US has begun transferring more than 500 million dollars in Libyan compensation money to the families of American victims of the 1988 Pan Am bombing.
[A fuller report can now be found on the website of The Independent. It reads in part:
'American relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing were today accused of closing their minds to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
'The charge came from former MP Tam Dalyell as the Lockerbie saga reached another milestone.
'The US has begun transferring more than 500 million dollars in Libyan compensation money to the families of American victims of the 1988 Pan Am bombing.
'Mr Dalyell, who is convinced of the innocence of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, serving a life term in a Scottish prison for the bombing, said developments in the case often saw some but not all US relatives asserting that Megrahi should die in prison.
'"This would be understandable if there were not the gravest doubts about whether he has anything to do with this crime that bereaved these relatives in the first place," said Mr Dalyell. a former Labour MP.
'"But I recognise that the pressures from some very vociferous relatives in the States are huge.
'"They have shut their minds to the possibility that the court could have carried out a miscarriage of justice."'
The full article can be read here.]
American relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing have been accused of closing their minds to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
The charge came from former MP Tam Dalyell as the Lockerbie saga reached another milestone.
The US has begun transferring more than 500 million dollars in Libyan compensation money to the families of American victims of the 1988 Pan Am bombing.
[A fuller report can now be found on the website of The Independent. It reads in part:
'American relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing were today accused of closing their minds to the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
'The charge came from former MP Tam Dalyell as the Lockerbie saga reached another milestone.
'The US has begun transferring more than 500 million dollars in Libyan compensation money to the families of American victims of the 1988 Pan Am bombing.
'Mr Dalyell, who is convinced of the innocence of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, serving a life term in a Scottish prison for the bombing, said developments in the case often saw some but not all US relatives asserting that Megrahi should die in prison.
'"This would be understandable if there were not the gravest doubts about whether he has anything to do with this crime that bereaved these relatives in the first place," said Mr Dalyell. a former Labour MP.
'"But I recognise that the pressures from some very vociferous relatives in the States are huge.
'"They have shut their minds to the possibility that the court could have carried out a miscarriage of justice."'
The full article can be read here.]
Dr Swire feels responsible
[Dr Jim Swire] admitted he feels responsible [for Abdelbaset Megrahi's plight] because he met Libyan leader Colonel Gadaffi in 1998 and persuaded him to hand over al-Megrahi and another suspect for trial.
The retired GP said: “I believe he was handed over by Gadaffi because of my meetings with him.
“But after hearing the evidence at the trial, I believe he isn’t guilty.”
He added: “I believe the truth will never come out while I’m alive.
“Justice will not be done in my lifetime.”
[From today's issue of The Scottish Sun and drawn to my attention by a blog reader who wishes it to be clearly understood that the newspaper in question is not his regular morning read. The full article can be accessed here.]
[From an e-mail from Dr Swire to me: "I don't know how the Sun can live with itself, they've used the mistakes from another article to misrepresent my position, without ever bothering to ask me what I actually thought."]
The retired GP said: “I believe he was handed over by Gadaffi because of my meetings with him.
“But after hearing the evidence at the trial, I believe he isn’t guilty.”
He added: “I believe the truth will never come out while I’m alive.
“Justice will not be done in my lifetime.”
[From today's issue of The Scottish Sun and drawn to my attention by a blog reader who wishes it to be clearly understood that the newspaper in question is not his regular morning read. The full article can be accessed here.]
[From an e-mail from Dr Swire to me: "I don't know how the Sun can live with itself, they've used the mistakes from another article to misrepresent my position, without ever bothering to ask me what I actually thought."]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)